Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing so-called International Health regulations. What are we talking about here? Well, a couple of months back I believe, or at least it was weeks ago, I was discussing on here the notion of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. This was discussed going back into 2022; I raised serious concerns about that at the time. There is stuff going on in the United States at least on the US side of the pond with regard to this; it is a little more opaque over here on the Thailand side as to how exactly this is playing out at the national level in either of those countries specifically in Thailand. It is kind of opaque in the United States but from what I have been reading and admittedly it is multiple sources and there is a bit of a fog over this whole issue, I am kind of starting to wonder if that's not intentional, but it looks like the Administration in the US is trying to effectively ratify another Treaty via some kind of work around via an Executive Order. I am not buying the very specious sophistry that is being used as a legal argument in favour of “Well we don't need to have this ratified by the Senate. We are just tinkering with some internal dynamics of this agreement." Well, when you do that that's called making a new Treaty or amending an already existing Treaty. Senate needs to be brought in. Senate needs to advise and consent pursuant to the Constitution when you change Treaties. So that is how I am viewing things on the US side. On the Thai side I have my own concerns on this and frankly they vary from legalistic concerns all the way up to concerns regarding frankly maintenance and integrity of the sovereignty of Thailand which is something I'm really concerned about because this is a country I love.

That being said, I thought about making this article after reading a recent article from exposé-news.com. The article is titled: Amendments to IHR will enable totalitarianism on a global scale. Now before anybody starts sort of accusing me of engaging in hyperbole, first of all just on a person to person note, maybe a commonsensical note, things that I thought were absolutely insane and I considered myself to be a little bit out there on the fringe with regard to what I thought about the way the world was going and things of that nature, things I thought that were totally on the fringe going back to quarter one of 2020, the notion in January 2020 that "Vaccine Passports" would not only be seriously considered but would become an actual implemented policy, I thought was just insane, I never thought that would ever happen. Well it happened, and anybody that does not see the possible totalitarian ramifications of a national or international tracking system that tracks and tabulates whether or not people have put certain substances in their body, anyone who does not see the possible totalitarian ramifications or just the general negative ramifications of that, anyone who doesn't see that, I don't really know what to say to you because to me that is just like getting hit over the head with it. I mean it is serious stuff.

So in any event, again this article: Amendments to IHR will enable totalitarianism on a global scale, exposé-news.com, and I want to go ahead and start what I am going to quote, because I am going to quote something of a substantial piece of this, I want to go ahead and do the ‘About the Author‘ so that people understand where this is coming from before I get into the quotation. So, About the Author, quoting directly: "Dr. David Bell is a Clinical and Public Health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostic strategy with the World Health Organization." So that is the background of who we are going to be quoting. Now as for the technicals and getting into all of that good stuff, I really urge those who are watching this video, go check out that article in detail. A lot of interesting stuff coming from somebody who in my opinion is about as qualified to talk of this as I can find out there, and again, is talking about this in a very different language than I hear anybody else talking about; quite honestly I am not seeing anybody much talking about these International Health “Regulations”. It sounds very innocuous and as we said in the video about this possible Pandemic Treaty, it is far from it. When you get into this, this creates essentially a supra national level of control frankly over what can only be described as the nations of the world in a very real sense so quoting directly: What happens next? And again, this is after this person has gone through all the technicals, this doctor has gone through all the technicals, what's going to change. Again I really urge folks to look at that information if you are watching this video and interested because it's important but What happens next? Quoting directly: "If these amendments are accepted, the people taking control over the lives of others will have no real legal oversight as they have diplomatic immunity from all national jurisdictions. The salaries of many will be dependent on sponsorship from private individuals and corporations with direct financial interests in the decisions they will make. These decisions by an essentially unaccountable official will create mass markets for commodities, or provide know-how to commercial rivals. The covid-19 response illustrated the corporate profits that such decisions will enable. This situation is obviously unacceptable in any democratic society." Quoting further: "While the WHA has overall oversight of WHO policy with an Executive Board comprising WHA members, these operate in an orchestrated way. Many delegates have little depth of understanding of the proceedings, whilst bureaucrats draft and negotiate policy. Countries not sharing the values enshrined in the Constitutions of more democratic nations have equal votes on policy." I want to read that again. "Countries not sharing the values enshrined in the Constitutions of more democratic nations have equal votes on policy." Quoting further: "Whilst it is correct that sovereign States have equal rights, the human rights and freedoms of one nation’s citizens cannot be ceded to the governments of others, nor to a non-State entity placing itself above them.” Quoting further: “Many nations have developed checks and balances over centuries, based on an understanding of fundamental values. These have been designed specifically to avoid the sort of situation we now see arising, where one group which is law unto itself, can arbitrarily remove and control the freedom of others. Free media developed as a further safeguard, based on principles of freedom of expression and an equal right to be heard. Just as these values are necessary for democracy and equality, their removal is necessary in order to introduce totalitarianism and a structure based on inequality. The proposed amendments to the IHR are designed explicitly to do this.” Quoting further: “The proposed new power is sought by WHO, and the pandemic preparedness industry being built around it, are not hidden. The only subterfuge is the farcical approach of media and politicians in many nations who seem to pretend that the proposals do not exist, or if they do, will not fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between people and centralized non-State powers. The people who will become subject to these powers, and the politicians who are on track to cede them, should start paying attention. We must all decide whether we wish to cede so easily that which has taken centuries to achieve, to assuage the greed of others.”

So again and I just want to say this again, this is from Dr. David Bell. He is a Clinical and Public Health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostic strategy with the World Health Organization. As far as I am concerned, that is a pretty credible character out there who is making these statements and when I see someone like that saying these things, drawing these conclusions, that concerns me greatly and it should concern everyone. In the United States I have got serious problems because I am seeing people talking about this in the context of well this can be promulgated via change, just changes; basically it is being sort of, where it is being discussed, it is being sort of discussed as if it is just a minor regulatory change. This is not minor. If this is going to happen in a US context, Senate ratification in my opinion is absolutely necessary. This is a new Treaty. This is not some minor change. In fact I fail to see where any International agreement on Treaty level has any “minor changes” that do not warrant further Senate oversight. That's the Constitution in the United States. The Senate shall advise and consent regarding Treaties into US Law, fair enough. And those Treaties by the way become incorporated into US Law because they go through that process between the Executive and the Senate going through that ratification process. That is why they become the “Law of the Land” under article 6 of the US Constitution. Okay leaving that aside.

In the Thai context, this concerns me on levels I can't even explain. I am not even going to get into a legalistic argument but one of the things, Thailand has always prided herself on her independence, her sovereign integrity. These changes and again I urge folks who are watching this video to go look at this article and read in depth what this could mean. I mean I do not want to see any organization that is not Thai, that is not in Thailand making decisions on the Public Health Policy of Thailand. I have got serious questions and qualms and concerns. I mean I don't want it quite honestly; I can't put too fine a point on it. As far as I am concerned, Thailand can take care of herself and can make her own decisions regarding Public Health Policy in Thailand. We do not need an outside organization that is not in Thailand, that is making decisions as to what Thailand needs to be doing, I just don't see where that's a good idea at all. I am not even going to get into the, people that have watched this channel on any frequent basis, know hat I get into the history of Thailand, dealing with the colonialists, dealing with the Wars, dealing with the Cold War, Thailand has had to hold her own under very difficult circumstances and what I really don't want to see is this present difficult circumstance we have hopefully finally concluded, i.e. the pandemic and more importantly the response thereto, I'm really, really hoping that we see this for what it is and what it is is it's overreach. To me, like the WHO as a consultative body, as a body of guidance, makes some sense to me; sort of international coordination on guidance on what is going on here and there and everywhere. Okay, I would feel more comfortable with that if the WHO's track record the past 3 years had been a little better than it presently is. I'm kind of curious at what point, where along the lines anyone has had any great degrees of confidence regarding the WHO over the past 3 years. I remember Adam Carolla going back, I think it was about a year ago the media was saying this and that about sort of I think it was kind of misinformation, disinformation and he brought up the point, talking about sort of the mainstream media whatever you want to call it, corporate media in the United States but sort of the usual suspects if you will, the media as we know it and he said, I'm paraphrasing but he said: "what have you been right about?” when he brought up the media. He said: “you're saying there is always misinformation, disinformation and all of this good stuff but what have you been right about?” So that kind of puts the end to the question there as far as I am concerned. I'm not necessarily leveling the same thing at WHO. I understand the world is a fluid place; there's imperfect information; I get all of that. People are human, all of that good stuff but when we are talking about a situation where at least the countries I'm most interested in, the United States and Thailand, are going to place themselves underneath this supranational organization and have their policies be dictated to them by this supranational organization, I think we have to have a serious discussion here. And I personally am against it, just full disclosure if it's not clear from this video, but I don't think this is a good idea. I think the national governments can most assuredly handle this. We do not need to be dictated to by some amorphous international organization and I think it's something that needs to be deeply thought about and it definitely needs to be discussed far more than it is being discussed at the present time.