My e-mail exchange with my MP and Maggie Throup MP who is the "vaccines Minister"
Shows that us sceptics now more than officialdom
My MP’s usual, stock answer is this:
Many thanks for your recent correspondence.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again on any issue where you feel I may be of assistance.
Pretty pathetic to say the least but at least he answers which is more than many MPs. So I took him up on his offer.
There is one thing that assistance is required on by each and every Member of Parliament and that is to bring pressure on Government about their response to the UN WHO's meetings in Switzerland about “beefing up” measures to deal with a “future pandemic”.
This means them taking control of every aspect of the situation up to and including taking control of a country in toto.
This must be stopped and the UK Government should step away from this plan and agree never to hand over power over this country, it’s people nor it’s economy to a foreign entity again.It took a lot of years and hard work to break free from the EU, how long would it take to break the UN’s grip if another “pandemic” was declared?
He passed on my concerns to the relevant person higher up with responsibility for this matter so I thanked him:
Thank you for that and I wish you luck getting something meaningful from him (or her to be PC) or their department.
You will understand though that I won’t be holding my breath for that though.
Eventually the person responsible sent him a letter that he forwarded to me.
It was from this person:
This is who is responsible for the WHO treaty for the UK:
It was most enlightening:
Dear Sir xxxx,
Thank you for your correspondence of 25 February on behalf of your constituent, Mr Awkward Git, about the World Health Organization (WHO). I apologise for the delay in replying.
I am grateful to you for raising Mr XXXXXX’s concerns.
COVID-19 has demonstrated that no one is safe until we are all safe, and that a truly global solution is needed to better protect the UK and the world from the detrimental impacts of pandemics and other health threats. The UK therefore supports a new legally binding instrument as part of a comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
At a World Health Assembly special session in December, WHO member states agreed to launch a process to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on tackling pandemics. The instrument will be designed to improve global performance in preventing, preparing for and responding to future disease outbreaks of pandemic potential, at a national, regional and global level.
As the leading global health agency, the WHO is the clear institutional home for a legally binding agreement. The UK is party to a large number of multilateral treaties, including many through the United Nations and its specialised agencies, including the WHO. Through these treaties, the UK and other member states have agreed common standards and made commitments to each other, and in many cases have provided for international organisations themselves to assist with and monitor implementation of those treaties. However, Parliament’s role in the UK remains undiminished and any treaty will not hand over the governance of health in the UK to the WHO.
I hope this reply is helpful.
MAGGIE THROUP MP
Can anyone spot what is wrong with this answer?
So I replied to my MP with 2 replies:
Thank you for forwarding the reply but yet again it does absolutely nothing to put my and many other’s fears at rest that this Government nor the Opposition are working in the best interests of this country and that they will not give up our sovereignty to a foreign entity.
I have copied Maggie Throup MP on this e-mail.
I have re-read the reply you so kindly forwarded to me and it is astounding how woefully misinformed she is over this matter and it’s possible repercussions in the future including the scenario I previously outlined to you.
And as for the statement “no-one is safe until we are all safe” is just a worthless platitude regurgitated from the past 2 years of attempted fear and brainwashing by the Government and MSM. Totally irrelevant to this matter.
As for her comment about not ceding national sovereignty, then she obviously has not read the proposed changes nor new treaty has she?
What is unambiguous about this statement: "The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations."
I think that she should contact the World Council for Health amongst many others who are well informed for more and in-depth information on the 2 issues - yes, there are 2 separate issues with the WHO and the pandemic treaty - there are the planned changes to the existing treaty being discussed at present plus a new treaty to come into play in 2024 and which hands full control of pandemics into remit of the WHO.
Some basic information from them to start your research on the changes to the current treaty:
Properly understood, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new pandemic treaty.
Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59
Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
The World Council for Health’s Position On Proposed IHR Amendments
The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state – and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model – is the expert guide to better health and wellness.
These proposed IHR amendments will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022. The official agenda item is 16.2. It is not clear if the event will be broadcast for transparency. Thus, the WCH believes that it is essential to campaign against the proposed amendments and to build alternative pathways.
Why People Must Take Action Together
Due to the influence of private money at the WHO, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy stated that the corruption of the WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time.” This is particularly true in relation to WHO drug recommendations, including its “list of essential medicines,” which a growing number of people believe is biased and unreliable.
Moreover, even though WHO’s documents highlight voice, agency, and social participation as drivers of equity and democracy, it is unknown World Health Assembly delegates who get to make decisions for us. To date, 13 days away from the World Health Assembly 75, the secretive list of each country’s delegates has been not been published. This is censorship.
I also tried to explain to him how this treaty also ties into the Online harms Bill and other legislation and which is part of a separate and different chain of e-mails I had had with my MP and Ministers etc - none of whom showed they even understood the basics of the legislation they are supporting:
Thank you for forwarding the reply from Lord Wolfson but please forgive me when I say his stock platitudes and telling me to read a document I have already read and digested does not put my mind at ease one little bit.
His sentence "On 14 December, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care stated to the House of Commons “Let me say clearly to the House today - once and for all - that although we have seen plans for universal mandatory vaccination in some countries in Europe, I will never support them in this country” is definetly misleading.How many times have statement similar to that been broken by Government in recent times?
Weren’t any restrictions “only for 3 weeks to flatten the curve”?
Wasn’t there supposed only to be one jab for the at risk?
Wasn’t there reassurances given like that statement that children would never be targeted for the covid vaccine?
Weren’t there supposed to be no covid passes?
Weren’t the covid vaccines “safe and effective” although no documentation has been supplied into the public domain that shows this is true?
Weren’t PCR tests “the gold standard reference” when I have Government documents sent to me under FOI that state this is not so?
And on and on and on ad naseum for the past 2 years and even longer (decades at least) with a trail of broken “promises” and subsequent back pedalling and denials by Ministers, Governments and the Opposition?
As the saying goes - it’s not worth the paper it was written on!
Here is a very plausible scenario you and your fellow MPs, who are there to act in the best interests of their constituents and not the political party they represent, should be aware of and be working to stop and ensure it can never happen in this country:
Step 1 - the current Human Rights legislation is repealed
Step 2 - the Bill of Rights is enacted with the “common good” clause included
Step 3 - the Online Harms Boll is passed as is which remove s the right to post online dissenting opinions that are not agreeing with the “agreed narrative”.
Step 4 - the WHO pandemic Treaty is signed as they want by 2024 which gives the WHO worldwide control over any future “pandemics" and national Governments who are signatory to the treaty can only follow the WHO’s orders - an organisation run by a known Communist who is being investigated for/wanted for genocide by the ICC
Step 5 - WHO declare a “pandemic”
Step 6 - WHO declare all countries must lockdown and give all of their population a new and unproven vaccine against whatever caused the pandemic
Step 7 - enforced lockdowns, testing and so on in the UK similar to what the 25 million people who are under lockdown currently in Shanghai are under “for the common good” - that phrase again. Not seen the current situation on Shanghai in the MSM have you?
Step 8 - WHO says mandatory vaccines and so on required regardless of what the Secretary of State at the moment believes or thinks or his superiors want
Think it’s far fetched? Pure paranoia? Fantasy?
I would like to think so bit I honestly think it is not just a possibility but highly likely unless things change drastically in coming months.
If you require further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.
Below are links to support my statements in this e-mail:
I am more than willing to meet in person to brief you and other MPs and Parliamentary Committees on this matter and go through the FOIs I have from the MHRA, DHSC, GO Science, devolved assemblies, local authorities and UKHSA that there is no and never has been any “science” to support any actions taken by Government since 10th February 2020 when the initial piece of coronavirus legislation became law based on a false statement by the CMOs of the 4 Home countries.
Please feel free to pass on anything in this e-mail to whoever you see fit and my offer to meet will also apply to them.
I followed by this a little while later and a few others I won’t bore you with here:
More on the WHO’s plans to overrule national sovereignty and it happening sooner than you think:
To be voted on in 4 weeks time.
One step nearer to the plausible scenario I outlined below isn’t it? Nor is it so far-fetched?
Am I right in thinking our representatives do not have a fu*king scooby-do about what is going on or where they are leading us?
Or do they know exactly where this is leading and are part of the problem?