Pandemic 2.0 and the New Pandemic Treaty. Hold the Line!
Transcript included
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
(Originally published December 3, 2023)
“They’re not asking for anything else; they just want the gift of life. If it’s there and it’s possible please give it. I don’t want to die, God help me.”
– Sheila Lewis at the NCI in Ottawa on May 17, 2023. She was not allowed an organ transplant on the grounds of her choice to not take the COVID-19 vaccine. She died three months later. [1]
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Approximately four years ago, as of this date, was when signs began to arise of some sort of nasty illness erupting in China. [2]
Not big news at the time. The general public then had no idea this illness would escalate beyond China into a full blown “pandemic” that authorities at the World Health Organization (WHO) would need drastic measures, including lockdowns, social distancing and even withholding rights of organization, and an aggressive vaccination approach to retain it.
Now, four years after the worst seems to be over – the WHO Director-General stated that COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern – and life seems to be getting back to normal, albeit with the economic and social repercussions still evident in the wake of the COVID-19 storm.
We find however two events marking the anniversary of the beginning these changes to the planetary crisis.
One is the Final Report completed earlier this week by the National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19. Commissioners tabled their full report after listening to and questioning sworn testimonials from over 300 witnesses in eight different cities across Canada. The Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of COVID-19 Response in Canada was the product of over a year of work, and was forged as the culmination of a full citizens report. According to the authors, literally thousands of volunteers were active in making these hearings possible. [3]
The other timely indication is the rise of mainstream media coverage of illnesses around the globe, and the threat of another pandemic on the horizon. If this is a replay of history, we can seemingly look forward to a “doubling-down” on masking, restrictions and a massive new threat as a divided public could soon emerge into a civil war among those desperate to “protect our children” while the Vaccination program, Digital IDs etc are going to be implemented “by hook or by crook.”
This episode of the Global Research News Hour will focus on the three Dickensian ghosts of Pandemic Past, Pandemic present and Pandemics yet to come.
In our first half hour, we highlight the recent Final Report of the NCI and interview NCI Commissioner Kenneth Drysdale about its content and its prospects for the future.
In our second half hour, James Corbett joins us once again to talk about the pandemic horrors arising and also talks about the draft Pandemic Agreement tabled in October and what the signing of this agreement by the WHO could mean for the future of public health and for democracy in Canada and around the world.
Kenneth Drysdale, FEC and P.Eng is an executive engineer with over 40 years of experience as a Professional Engineer, which includes 29 years experience in the development and management of national and regional engineering businesses. Ken is currently retired from full time practice as a consulting engineer, but continues to be active in the area of forensic engineering, investigations, preparation of expert reports and expert testimony at trial, arbitrations, and mediations. He has testified as expert witness at trials in Manitoba and Ontario. He has acted as the arbitrator and mediator in disputes.
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
(Global Research News Hour Episode 411)
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Transcript of James Corbett, November 27, 2023
Global Research: So, as we see in the press, there have been a series of article coming out in the mainstream press mentioning a new pandemic definitely coming. And now, we’re seeing upsetting news from China that has prompted masking and distancing in China. Again, it looks like a respiratory illness not from a novel virus, but from, you know, clusters of overlapping common viruses. And this could be a replay of four years ago, although this time the health care enforcers, if I could put it that way, will be prepared, you know, for the few people who dissent from the standard advice of the WHO. But the new pandemic sort of treaty comes out in May of 2024, or it’s supposed to. I’m wondering, James, what you think about this. Is this the next step in the plans to establish the power grab of the WHO? Is this something you’ve been expecting? Or is it just a seasonal flu being embellished?
James Corbett: It really could be both, actually. And in fact, I will add to this mix, that as we are recording the latest headlines are, “UK detects its first human case of swine flu strain.” So, apparently, there is even more fuel for this fire that’s developing even as we are talking right now. And I think people can probably intuit that regardless of what you think about what happened over the past few years, the ground work has been laid, at least in the psyche and the consciousness of the public to understand and expect that there will be massive response to any future pandemic threats.
And as much as people may poo-poo the craziness of the past few years and the masking and the lockdowns, it is interesting to speculate what might happen if there was a truly, as opposed to not quite – a nothing virus, I won’t say it that way, but at least a very, very small event in terms of mortality. If there was a truly bubonic plague-level taking out one quarter of the population type of illness going around, the way people would be clamouring for the very rules and restrictions that they were protesting against in the previous few years.
And you have to at least imagine that if there were people in positions of power and authority who seek to profit in every sense, monetarily and just through power grabs from that type of fear, that at the very least, they would be playing into that, if not actively seeking to create such strains. But at any rate, we don’t even have to go there.
And the way that I understand this entire topic, because I have been researching very carefully over the past 16 years now, the topic of false flag terrorism, I do see the parallels between the War on Terror, and the new biosecurity state that’s coming into view with the pandemic preparedness that the United Nations, for example, was talking about after their latest general assembly. And having a political call that we must have some sort of new agreements from the World Health Organization to help us prepare for this. And oh, lo and behold, they are working on just such an agreement that they won’t really let us see until it has passed, presumably, at next year’s World Health Assembly in Geneva in May of 2024. And I think the way to understand this is that throughout, for example, the 1990s, it wasn’t just that Osama Bin Laden suddenly appeared all overnight. There was a gradual buildup of events that took place in an escalating cycle. And in the American domestic response context we could see, for example, Waco, and then the OKC bombing, preparing the public for these psychologically-jarring, very large-scale terror events.
And on the international scale, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole introducing the sort of – the idea to the public. We saw, for example, in the wake of the OKC bombing, the introduction of the Crime Omnibus bill that Joe Biden now likes to brag that he essentially – he really kind of wrote the Patriot Act, because that was just an extension of the Crime Omnibus bill that they tried to pass in the wake of the OKC bombing. All of this infrastructure was being laid beforehand.
And interestingly enough, it wasn’t even simply 9/11 that caused the actual pulling of the trigger on the entire Homeland Security state and the actual institution of the Patriot Act. It was the anthrax attacks which were literally, directly targeting Congress at the exact time that they were deliberating on the Patriot Act and whatever provisions might be slipped into there. And then, the anthrax attacks happened, caused this massive panic, the shutdown of Congress. They decided to pass the Patriot Act right away in an overnight session, panic, emergency.
And now, there’s a new law of the land, and entirely new paradigm of governance. We are looking at a potentially very similar trajectory. We saw the buildup of events from the swine flu of 2009, Zika, the Ebola scare of 2014, et cetera. Escalating throughout the 2010’s into the Covid scare of the past few years. And now, we are on the cusp of potentially another scare which might cause the actual political impetus and even the public to get on board with the idea of the World Health Organization swooping in to save the day with their brand new pandemic agreement.
GR: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I can’t help but notice that another aspect of it that was being planned for was the fact that climate change would somehow be motivating this or, you know, resulting in the transfer of more of these – the virus from animals to humans or something like that. And this is right now during the latest COP28, you know, summary —
JC: Exactly. Exactly right. And in fact, that’s an incredibly important thing to underline, because one of the pieces that is being embedded, or at least, from what we’ve seen is being embedded in the new pandemic agreement that they’re working on behind closed doors is this concept of One Health, in which it will not simply be about human health.
It’s not just that the World Health Organization is going to steward over the entirety of the human population and let’s trust our health to their assessment. No, it’s One Health, as in, it’s not just human health, it’s animal health, climate/environment health, is all related. And thus, essentially the entire world and all of its resources come under the jurisdiction of the World Health Organization. Though, it is incredibly important.
And one of the things that they stress is zoonotic transfer from animal species to human species. And this is happening because we’re encroaching on protected areas and because of climate change, et cetera, et cetera. So now, all of this starts to become essentially, as has been pointed out, for example by the Club of Rome in their 1991 publication on the first global revolution where they said that they were looking for a way to unite humanity behind the concept of humanity itself being the enemy, and global warming fit the bill, because it is a human – presumably, at least according to the theory – is a human-generated problem and it requires this global governmental solution. And that’s exactly what we seemed to be facing with this.
GR: Yeah. Well, maybe you could bring us up to speed on the changes that the WHO has planned, I mean, for those who, you know, are maybe up-to-date. I mean, there’s the creation of the document aimed at the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to the future pandemic. They tabled a recent draft in October, okay, where you say it’s all been discussed behind closed doors, nobody can see. Could you just highlight a few of the concerns – just a few – of the concerns you are raising about this not-quite-a-treaty document that, in combination with changes to the international health regulations, could see the sovereignty of states and individual’s health threatened even more than they already are.
JC: There are certainly aspects of power grab, money grab to this from the big pharmaceutical companies that could stand to benefit from the types of changes that are coming into view.
There is also the setting up of genomic data transfers of not just pandemic pathogens of international concern, but potential pathogenic problems, which essentially opens up a Pandora’s box of countries potentially being somehow – at least through this treaty – legally obligated to start sharing various genetic data in ways that are not very well explained, at least in the draft documents that we’ve seen so far. They also raised, for the first time in a legal document, the concept of ‘infodemic,’ which they give some sort of cursory definition to. But essentially, the question on the table is: what to do in the light of future pandemic or emergency situations when people are spreading false information on the internet.
And we know what that looks like, because well, for I mean, myself, I had my YouTube channel with nearly 600,000 subscribers that I’d built up over 14 years taken out at the flip of a switch because it was, of course, in contravention of World Health Organization mandates and remits or whatever gobbledeegook garbage language that YouTube used to censor masses of people back during the previous scare. We can only imagine they are now looking at actually instituting some teeth in that, so that the World Health Organization itself can really come in and censor people.
There are many, many other concerns, but the most concerning to me is the fact that they are no longer calling it an ‘agreement’ or ‘instrument’ or other legal body, blah blah blah, whatever they were – gobbledeegook mouthful of a phrase they were using to describe this document before.
They are calling it specifically a “pandemic agreement,” but very specifically in Article 21 of the draft that they released on October 31st – boo, Halloween – they have specifically a reference to the creation of a “Conference of the Parties,” which for people who do not know, the C-O-P – COP – is used in the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s used in the Biological – Treaty, Warfare Treaty, et cetera, et cetera. All of these various UN branches and agreements have their C-O-P, their Conference of the Parties, which is essentially set up like a type of government, which will not just operate and institute a single set of laws. It will continue to operate and meet year after year after year to try to develop and continue adding teeth to whatever agreement that they sign in May 2024.
So, even if the pandemic agreement that will undoubtedly get rubber stamped in May 2024 unless we make that politically unfeasible, even if that agreement was fine on its face and didn’t actually institute any of this, the Conference of the Parties that will meet every year thereafter, could add all of these things to the agreement.
And guess what? There is exactly zero political accountability or insight into this process whatsoever. In the exact same way that Canadians, for example, have exactly zero say over the Conference of the Parties at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, you don’t get to elect whatever representative the Canadian government decides to send over there. And you have absolutely no say on whatever they decide in those agreements. But then, they start to become the rule of the law – the law of the land in Canada.
How did that happen? It’s because, essentially, this is a great sovereignty takeover that is happening right under our eyes and they are attempting to do the exact same thing with the World Health Organization.
GR: Wow. I know that – yeah, it sounds like you’ve got sort of a mini-state within the state that is basically saying, ‘Okay, whatever you guys decide, this is what the rules are going to be.’ At least in health. I know that there’s an article, WION reports that Kate Bingham, the chairperson of the UK’s Disease X, could turn out to be the UK’s vaccine task force from May-December 2020 said that she believed that Disease X could turn out to be considerably more perilous than Covid-19. You also mentioned in your last – in our last interview that Bill Gates said that Covid-19 was a Pandemic I, and we are facing Pandemic II, like World War II, you know? It will be more demanding that everyone get vaccinated, I imagine. Do you see the health enforcers clamping down on vaccines at a time when fewer and fewer people are bothering to go based on what – the data they are seeing?
JC: I think that what the past few years has exposed is that the fact that we should not be listening unquestioningly to what we are told is ‘the science,’ while excluding all of those medical professionals, including very degreed, very credentialed, people who have had entire careers in the medical field who have never once been question, but now are toxic and cannot be interviewed or mentioned in mainstream media because they dared to question the pronouncements of the past few years. And we find out, oh, wait, they were right.
There are serious health concerns with what is masquerading as a vaccine which is actually this mRNA injection, et cetera. There is a lot of people who have woken up to that reality.
The only way I think that they can continue to push forward with this agenda is to double down. And the only way to really double down is to create or generate or play up or whatever it is some sense of not just a renewed crisis, but an actually escalating crisis. ‘This is going to be worse than what we saw with that Covid thing. You thought that was bad? Wait until you see this.’ And unfortunately, we are talking about the people who have been working in that murky world of biological weapons that we were talking about in our previous conversation with David Kelly who, presumably, would know a thing or two about what Disease X might look like.
And for the people in the audience who don’t know about this, there has been talk for years now about war gaming and planning. There have been disease exercises run by these various organizations and foundations, et cetera, on Clade X and other such things, which is an imaginary potential future pandemic of some sort of respiratory virus or something along those lines that will spread around the world. They have been war gaming out that situation for many situation for many years now.
And one would expect that, well, when you start at the least when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Well, at least in this situation, whatever develops, whether natural or some sort of man-made thing, whether released on purpose or accidentally escaping from some – one of these Class 5 biological containment facilities or whatever the case may be, at any rate, they will try to hammer that problem down because they see it as the nail. And the hammer that they have is all of this infrastructure that they are putting into place right now for the biosecurity state which will almost inevitably involve some sort of mandatory vaccinations – “vaccinations” – once again talking about this new – I guess we can’t call it experimental anymore because it’s the human population that’s being experimented on, the mRNA injections, and other such novel ideas for really rearranging people and their natural biological processes. Playing with the code of life, the “software of life,” as even Moderna and other companies have called it.
And who is spearheading all of this and being the front man for it? Of course, it’s Bill Gates, the man who took over the software of the computer world 30 years ago and is now going to try to transform the software of life itself.
GR: Yeah, well that leads me to my final question for you and I hope you will address it. The idea of how we actually prepare for Pandemic II and the WHO legislation coming down the pike.
JC: Unfortunately, this is one of those problems which there is no half-hearted solution. There may be a number of stop-gap political measures that can be made that might lesson the impact of this. But as we have seen, no matter what sort of legal instruments or documents or pieces of paper people might have like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they think protects their fundamental rights, those can all and will all be discarded in the sense – in the perceived sense of a crisis, whether real or imaginary.
And so, what really, truly needs to happen is a fundamental transformation of not the political system itself but our understanding of our individual human sovereignty, our medical freedom. We have the right to make our decisions for our own bodies. And that decision may be: I perceive there is a real risk, I’m going to mask up, I’m going to take the mRNA, whatever that position is, it is again up to and incumbent on each individual to make that decision for themselves. And no presumed, self-described health authority has the right to mandate that on anyone. Until that fundamental transformation of human consciousness takes place, I don’t think there will be some sort of solution from within the political system as it is being woven around us.
Because as I said, for example, you have zero input into the UNFCC process, you will have zero input into this World Health Organization process that is going on. So, I would say that the first order of political sorts of things that we can do to start to generate this consciousness in the public sphere, is to create and put momentum behind an effort to start by withdrawing Canada and every other nation from the World Health Organization itself.
Just as a start, just to say, “No.” Our health sovereignty as a nation does not rely on whatever the World Health Organization is saying. That organization may exist, and it may have its recommendations and we may follow those recommendations, maybe we won’t. But we will not sign our countries sovereignty over to this organization and put ourselves beholden to them. That would be the first step.
The second step, of course, would be to withdraw from the United Nations and all of these other global government nascent bodies that breach national sovereignty. And then, people can start working on taking the next level down from, ‘Well, we don’t need this international government. Why do we need the national government to dictate to all of the provinces, for example, so we can bring it down to the provincial level. And from the provincial level, eventually maybe we can get to actual individual sovereignty. But until we start reversing exactly going in the opposite direction of this trend towards global consolidation of power, and moving it down towards the individual. Until that momentum starts to shift, I don’t think we’ll have a real solution here.
GR: Fantastic. James Corbett, thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and understanding with our listeners. We really appreciate it.
JC: Thank you for having me on.
The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .
Other stations airing the show:
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.
Notes:
- National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19 (November 28, 2023),’Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of COVID-19 Response in Canada’; https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/commissioners-report/
- Huang, Chaolin; Wang, Yeming; Li, et al (February 2020), “Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China”, the Lancet 395 (10223): 497-506; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159299/
- Op cit. National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19, Pg (2, 23)
No comments:
Post a Comment