Transcript of the above video:

A video like this is not something I initially set out to start making when we started making this channel but facts sort of intervened during the pandemic and it has kind of resulted in, I waded in on a lot of these topics, especially where I thought a lot of public policy was not making any sense and I have kind of been on this ever since. So I guess the point I am trying to make and the preface of this video is I sort of came by it honestly. I didn't really want to start making videos like this but circumstances were such that I just felt I think it was kind of necessary because I don't think people fully understand the context of what is going on when you hear people talk about "okay we are going to revise the WHO's Pandemic Treaty" and "revise" in my mind is a massive understatement. I have done other videos before where I have said, at least in the American context, this isn't a revision, this isn't something where you are slightly tweaking terminology. Massive changes are going to be made to this and in my opinion, that is not some fast-track process, that requires in an American context, ratification by the US Senate because it is a Treaty that fundamentally changes things. 

So, I am going to go over to a clip here real quick from Redacted - this is another channel here on YouTube - and they just do a heck of a job pointing out what is going on with this. Again, we have been talking about it for a while now but they have the time and the resources to really do a deep dive into this and I urge those who are watching this channel, go check out that video in detail if you want; again I will put a link in the description below, but we will go ahead and play a clip right here and again I am going to go back into - at the beginning of this clip this young lady who is speaking here is talking about the fact that all of the WHO Treaty is going from a guidance nature to a legally binding -  they say it over and over, she even highlights it in this clip I am about to play - and again I state again that I think in my opinion, where you are taking something from being "guidance" to "legally binding", at least in an American context, yeah that requires a new Treaty, that's not just you are changing a couple of things, it's like a regulatory thing or an administrative rule thing, no, the fundamental terms of this agreement are changing. That in my mind requires ratification under the Senate in the US context. Now in a Thailand context, obviously they do things differently here. Again, I have said it before and I will say it again, I really think Thailand should reconsider this thing and not just sort of allow this to be promulgated without any further scrutiny. I think further scrutiny is highly warranted under the circumstances. Again, let me go ahead and play this clip, it's about a minute here, we are going to go ahead and play that and we'll come back to you.

"From the draft that was released earlier this year, it says, I just highlighted the word "binding" how many times that this draft was written with the intention of putting in place "binding" and some non-binding, legally binding elements and what binding powers do they want? Well they haven't actually told us yet because this is still in draft. Here is from the draft that was released this February saying they want control of all of these things such as to define: 

-"what things are a pathogen or has pandemic potential"; 

-they want to define a "One Health approach" and also "One Health surveillance". 

The things that are circled here in red are the things that I just found the scariest; you can highlight other things if you want.

-"infodemic", "inter-pandemic" and also, they want to define "recovery" so they decide when it's over, when it's done. 

So as you can see in the clip of this video, one of the big things to my mind is again the fact that this goes from recommendations and guidance to binding, legally binding. Again I don't see why that is necessary and quite honestly after we saw what happened throughout this decade of the 2020s, I have got to be honest with you, I am not so sure I want WHO guidance to become "binding" in any way; I don't want some supranational organization to be making rulings that bind me here in Thailand or bind Thailand to have to do anything. Quite honestly, I think Thailand is pretty capable of figuring out how to do what she needs to do on her own, so that's just sort of my basic thinking on that. Again, I reiterate in an American context at the very least if this is going to be passed and passed into law, it needs to be ratified by the Senate, that is just clear to me. This is such a fundamental change, you can't claim this is something cosmetic. And even then, where is there a cosmetic exception to ratification under US Constitutional procedure, I've never seen that. That said, I know in the past where again regulations and administrative rulings spring from Treaties changing, yes you could argue that that is a different process than full re-ratification of a new Treaty but this is new, this is fundamentally, qualitatively changing the terms of the Treaty. 

Now going back into that clip, I wanted to go ahead and point out a few things which is also pursuant to the WHO, this new iteration of this WHO Pandemic Treaty, they want to go ahead and have the ability to define a bunch of terms for example the term, "pathogen" and "pandemic potential" means they want to define the meaning of that. "One Health approach" they want to define that; "One Health surveillance", and again I am not going to go into the details in the high weeds on this, frankly I think it is kind of beyond the bailiwick of the channel, and I like to do shorter videos on here. Again, go check out Redacted, she goes through all the, they both do, go through all the analysis of what this "One Health surveillance” is. Quoting further: "Infodemic" they want to define that term - "infodemic". So now they are making up words, okay? Hey I had a Law Professor, a really good guy, he was kind of an old curmudgeon but he said something to me that was very wise he said: "When lawyers are making up words, "Annie get your gun" sort of thing. You are in the high weeds when they are making up words, okay? Maybe I shouldn't have said it like that but that was literally his quote in law school. He said things are changing, you need to take, and his point with that is not to advocate any kind of violence or anything like that, but his point is "you need to take notice; you need to look at what is happening when they come up with a word like "infodemic".” Every time I saw that word when I was watching that video, I kept thinking of I believe it was when RFK was called before Congress and he was giving congressional testimony and he was talking about "malinformation", the definition of "malformation". So they had "misinformation", "disinformation" which have a qualitatively, how do we put this, you can hang your hat on something with those words. “Misinformation”, it may not be intentionally conveyed but it's incorrect. “Disinformation” presumably is incorrect information which is intentionally and sometimes maliciously conveyed but as Mr. Kennedy pointed out "malinformation" was just information they don't want you to talk about even though it is right, it is malinformation and he brought that up to me, so when I saw this "infodemic", what is that? That to my mind is, that is something to worry about. Then another term, "Inter-pandemic", so a pandemic within a, I don't even know what that is. Inter-pandemic. “Current health expenditure”, “universal health coverage”, they want to define that as well. 

Then finally and this was the one I thought was most pernicious, especially having come off of 3 years of what I can only describe as economic and social hell of going through all this stuff but "recovery"; they want to define "recovery". Now again the powers, this is sort of one of the first things you learn when you are trained in law is "the power to define, is the power to control", and that was sort of the interesting thing watching this pandemic especially the response. As I have said before I am not going to get into some crazy notions that this wasn't a real thing or that something real wasn't happening but I think we can now all agree, the information is in; this was an exaggeration on orders of magnitude above anything we have ever seen before and I don't know if it's kind of one of those "afraid of your own shadow" sort of things. I want to believe everybody operated in good faith, I really do but especially after seeing some of the things coming out in the United States with regard to documentation on how all this is played out, it causes me to question. That said, not the point of this video and I don't want to get off on that but one thing I noticed was look the recovery kind of happened on its own. People just got better; I am not going to get into the whole herd immunity and all of that but the virus ran its course as it were and we got on with our lives. My question is why would a supranational organization which has proven to this point to over-exaggerate things and bring in "guidance" which results in severe curtailing of the overall economy, severe curtailing of basic human rights, severe curtailing of basic societal functions, why would we want that organization to necessarily get to define when that state of affairs comes to an end. I don't really like that. I would just kind of rather if recovery again remained self-evident. I have noticed the past 3 years there has been, in many different arenas, a massive push to try to semantically nitpick notions that are self-evident. Things that we just used to take for granted. I have had multiple people tell me personally they say yeah these are things are grandparents just new off the top of their head. Again, the notion of recovery. I think we all know when we have recovered from an illness; we don't need a supranational bureaucracy to tell us when we are better. Again, reasonable people may be able to disagree on these things but at the end of the day, this is a major change; it will result in fundamental changes to certain laws, to certain abilities to exercise one's liberty so it is not something that I think we should dismiss out of hand; it is definitely something we should scrutinize and take a minute before making any final decision which could have a massive fundamental impact in the long term.