Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the WHO's so-called Pandemic Treaty. I have done a number of videos on this topic and I would like to think I have made my views pretty clear that I am pretty against the notion of Thailand getting on board with this whole thing. My personal opinion is a lot of the problems that Thailand has gone through in the last 3 years, especially economically, can be laid directly at the WHO's doorstep insofar as they in my opinion when you look back at the history, may have over, I hesitate to use the word 'exaggerated' but the criteria for even determining that this thing was a pandemic when it was "determined to be a pandemic" was much more fluid than I understood those criteria to be. Then in the aftermath of that, Tedros the person that heads up the WHO then tried to make Monkey Pox into a thing and basically overrode his entire Board who had voted against him or at least the majority of it had said 'NO, this doesn't reach the level of pandemic', he said: 'I don't care what you say, I am just going to call it that.' So all of this has made me very uneasy. The whole WHO approach to my mind looks very arbitrary and capricious and the problem is this supranational guidance was then implemented as practical enforcement of mandates and things, again whatever that means, here in Thailand, the upshot of which was effectively the economy was totally shut down for two and a half years. Thailand's economy and society in many ways were put in a very moribund state and it just generally wasn't good. 

I am going to go ahead and try something new with this video. We're going to go ahead and play a video I found on Twitter. This is from a gal testifying at the EU regarding what the provisions of this Treaty would actually entail. So we will go ahead and play that clip and I will come back to you after we are done playing it. 

Clip: "We undergoing a soft coup and the idea is to create a whole new set of laws and ignore the existing Human Rights Laws and other laws under the pretext of Pandemic Preparedness and the Biosecurity Agenda. The WHO is developing, through all its nations but with the WHO director and the United States in charge, a Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the existing International Health regulations that will remove the Human Rights protections currently embedded in the IHRs, will enforce surveillance censorship, get rid of freedom of speech, require governments to censor and only push a single narrative. Also we will be subject, if they can make this work, to vaccines developed in a hundred days which the Organization CEPI is planning to do and one of the people who founded CEPI was Jeremy Farrar who is now the Chief Scientist at the WHO to bring this forward. Other things that amendments do is to bind the stakes so they are no longer recommendations but enforceable edits, provide a liability shield, get rid of intellectual property rights, move supplies from one country to another, enforce 'digital passports' and the Director General of WHO can demand that a pandemic or a potential pandemic exists; he can just declare it with no standards and then countries around the world will have to obey. Also the WHO will tell you what drugs you can and can't use in your nation once a pandemic is declared. Obviously the budget will increase. One Health is another part of this. One Health is a concept that was created to enable the WHO, with these documents, to take over jurisdiction of everything in the world by saying that climate change, animals, plants, water systems, ecosystems are all central to health. Also embedded in this concept is a peculiar notion that humans are no longer of greater value than animals."

As you can see, the implications of this, if nothing else, it looks to me like the whole thing, let's presume everybody acts in good faith, let's make that presumption, if implemented these provisions would effectively supersede all the basic notions of Human Rights and due process, just entire notions that we've had in the civilized world since the enlightenment basically about notions of just basic freedoms and basic human rights, natural rights, natural law. Again this thing, I don't quite have the words to articulate how concerned I am about this because having seen what we went through from 2020 up to now when all of this was “guidance”, to having it turned into some kind of Decree which is instantaneously implementable on an international level makes me very, very concerned.

I think Thailand must look at this and say to itself "is this worth it for this country?" because at the end of the day sovereignty issues arise, all kinds of issues associated with just basic notions of the nation state come into play and I think it would behoove everyone to take a big, deep breath, look at this calmly and rationally and in my opinion not just adopt it as it is at this time.