Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Great Reset

Biden Administration Eager to Sign WHO Pandemic Treaty

Published

7 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D.  

The Biden administration signaled its support for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new pandemic treaty expected to be finalized at its World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, the final week of May.

Pamela Hamamoto, the State Department official representing the United States at the meeting, stated that “America is committed to signing the treaty that will ‘build a stronger global health structure,’” wrote John Tierney, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor, in the City Journal.

Adoption of a legally binding pact governing how countries around the world are to respond to future outbreaks like the recent COVID-19 pandemic has been the goal of WHO-directed negotiations since 2021. The WHO, a United Nations-sponsored organization, came under sharp criticism for its handling of the coronavirus.

On May 8, attorneys general from 22 states sent President Biden a letter saying they oppose the accords which will turn the WHO into the “world’s governor of public health.”  The letter says giving the WHO such authority violates the U.S. Constitution, and could lead to censorship of dissenting opinions, undermine Constitutional freedoms, and give the WHO power to declare any “emergency” besides health including climate change, gun violence, and immigration.

Missteps on COVID-19

In a post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2020, the WHO stated: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

Two weeks later, on January 30, 2020, WHO’s Emergency Committee issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), stating, “The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation of China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the front lines of this outbreak, with transparency and, it is to be hoped, success.”

The WHO’s initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19 concluded it was improbable that the virus resulted from experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, though it later acknowledged that it could have come from a lab leak at Wuhan. The WHO’s investigation, which was thwarted by Chinese officials, ultimately reached no conclusion. President Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO, a decision reversed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021.

More Smoke and Mirrors

Further undermining the WHO’s credibility in setting policies on managing a future pandemic, the group decided to include Peter Daszak, president of the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, in its initial investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance prominently featured in an investigation by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic into the government’s funding and lack of oversight of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, for which EcoHealth received grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health.

In an interim report released on May 1, 2024, the subcommittee said there is “significant evidence that Daszak violated the terms of the NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth. Given Dr. Daszak’s apparent contempt for the American people and disregard for legal reporting requirements, the Select Subcommittee recommends the formal debarment of and a criminal investigation into EcoHealth and its President.”

After the release of the report, U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) told the Washington Examiner, “The World Health Organization covered up the Chinese Communist Party’s role in developing and spreading COVID-19 and has since failed to hold them accountable for the global pandemic that killed millions, upended our daily lives, and destroyed thousands of small businesses.”

Public Fed Up

The WHO’s shaky record on COVID, including its close ties to China and Peter Daszak, have taken a toll on the public’s willingness to accept its leadership in any future pandemics.

poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the Center for Security Policy, released on April 17, found that 54.6 percent of likely voters oppose tying the United States to a WHO pandemic treaty, and just 29.0 percent favor such a move.

Agreements Bypass Congress

While providing few details, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January, WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “The pandemic agreement can bring all the experience, all the challenges we have faced and all the solutions into one. That agreement could help us prepare for the future in a better way.”

The “treaty” the Biden administration is eager to sign will likely be an executive agreement, like the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which was not presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification but contained “commitments” President Barack Obama pledged to honor.

Also in the works in Geneva are amendments to International Health Regulations, which Congress would not approve or disapprove.COVID

WHO’s Power Grab

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WS), sent a letter to President Biden signed by all 49 Republican senators, expressing their concern about the powers that could be handed to WHO, on May 2.

“Some of the over 300 proposals for amendments made by member states would substantially increase the WHO’s emergency powers and constitute intolerable infringements upon U.S. sovereignty,” the letter states.

Craig Rucker, president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), who has attended UN-sponsored conferences around the world for over 30 years, says the WHO is a destructive force.

“WHO’s performance during COVID-19 was a lethal combination of incompetence and dishonesty,” said Rucker. “The organization failed to protect public health and went to extraordinary lengths to cover up China’s role in fostering gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Ratification of any WHO pandemic treaty would be nothing short of a travesty.”

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph.D. ([email protected]is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

 

Censorship Industrial Complex

New WEF report suggests leveraging ESG scoring to enforce globalist ideas on online platforms

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

Unelected globalists like those at the World Economic Forum are attempting to associate ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ with human rights abuses to empower themselves and silence dissent online.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) says that environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) can prove valuable for evaluating platforms on their handling of disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, in a new report.

Published on June 6, 2024, the WEF white paper, “Making a Difference: How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online,” says that, “In an increasingly interconnected world, it is essential to measure digital safety in order to understand risks, allocate resources and demonstrate compliance with regulations.”

If measuring digital safety is considered to be essential, what then are the actual online harms that would necessitate measuring digital safety?

The latest white paper only gives three examples: disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material – as if they were all equal under the banner of online harm.

“ESG metrics present another valuable perspective for evaluating online safety” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

One method for evaluating online safety described in the latest WEF white paper is to leverage ESG scoring, which is basically a social credit for companies to make them fall in line with unelected globalist ideologies, even when these ESG policies are detrimental to their bottom line.

“Within ESG investing, companies are assessed based on their environmental impact, social responsibility and corporate governance practices,” the report reads.

Similarly, online platforms could be evaluated based on their efforts to promote a safe and inclusive online environment, and the transparency of content moderation policies.

Online platforms can also be evaluated based on their processes, tools and rules designed to promote the ‘safe use’ of their services in a manner that mitigates harm to vulnerable non-user groups.

And who will be evaluating online platforms in this Orwellian dystopia? Why, the unelected globalists themselves, of course!

Best to leave these decisions and all the power to bureaucrats that have our best interests at heart for the greater, collectivist good.

“An increase in the speed of content removals may reflect proactive moderation efforts, but it could also hint at overzealous censorship that stifles free expression” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

The WEF considers disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material as all being online harms that need to be measured and rectified.

But why do they lump everything together under this vague, blanket term of digital safety?

It is so that unelected globalist NGOs like the WEF can have more power and influence over government regulators concerning what type of information people are allowed to access through their service providers.

According to the report:

Digital safety metrics reinforce accountability, empowering NGOs and regulators to oversee service providers effectively.

They also serve as benchmarks for compliance monitoring, enhancing user trust in platforms, provided they are balanced with privacy considerations and take into account differentiation among services.

For the unelected globalist bureaucrats, measuring digital safety is about empowering themselves and forcing people into compliance with unelected globalist ideologies (with the help of regulators), all while balancing privacy considerations that are antithetical to everything they’re trying to achieve with the great reset and the fourth industrial revolution.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab has stated on numerous occasions that the so-called fourth industrial revolution will lead to the fusion of our physical, biological, and digital identities.

Schwab openly talks about a future where we will decode people’s brain activity to know how they’re feeling and what they are thinking and that people’s digital avatars will live on after death and their brains will be replicated using artificial intelligence.

How’s that for balancing privacy considerations in the digital world?

“Digital safety decisions must be rooted in international human rights frameworks” — Typology of Online Harms, WEF, August 2023

While the latest WEF white paper only lists disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, it builds upon an August 2023 insight report entitled “Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms,” which expands the scope of what constitutes online harm into various categories:

  • Threats to personal and community safety,
  • Harm to health and well-being,
  • Hate and discrimination,
  • Violation of dignity,
  • Invasion of privacy,
  • Deception and manipulation.

Many of the harms listed in last year’s report have to do with heinous acts against people of all ages and identities, but there too in that list of online harms, the WEF highlights misinformation and disinformation without giving a single, solitary example of either one.

With misinformation and disinformation, the typology report states that “[b]oth can be used to manipulate public opinion, interfere with democratic processes such as elections or cause harm to individuals, particularly when it involves misleading health information.”

In the same report, the unelected globalists admit that it’s almost impossible “to define or categorize common types of harm.”

The authors say that “there are regional differences in how specific harms are defined in different jurisdictions and that there is no international consensus on how to define or categorize common types of harm.

“Considering the contextual nature of online harm, the typology does not aim to offer precise definitions that are universally applicable in all contexts.”

By not offering precise definitions, they are deliberately making “online harm” a vague concept that can be left wide open to just about any interpretation, which makes quashing dissent and obfuscating the truth even easier because these “online harms,” in their eyes, must be seen as human rights abuses:

By framing online harms through a human rights lens, this typology emphasizes the impacts on individual users and aims to provide a broad categorization of harms to support global policy development

Once again, the authors are deliberately putting misinformation, disinformation, and so-called hate speech in the same category as abuse, harassment, doxing, and criminal acts of violence under this “broad categorization of harms.”

That way, they can treat anyone they deem as a threat for speaking truth to power in the same manner as they would for people who commit the most egregious crimes known to humanity.

The title of the latest white paper suggests that it’s all about measuring digital safety, but the title can be misleading.

It’s like what lawmakers do when they introduce bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which had nothing to do with reducing inflation and everything to do with advancing the green agenda, decarbonization, and net-zero policies.

Similarly, the WEF’s latest white paper may have little or nothing to do with reducing risks online, as the title suggests.

But it does have a lot to do with making sure that misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are associated with human rights abuses and other acts of real criminality.

In doing so, the ESG proponents can swoop in and consolidate more power for their public-private partnerships – the fusion of corporation and state.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Economy

ESG rankings have no significant effect on investment performance of Canadian public companies

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Despite claims to the contrary, the ESG rankings of publicly-traded Canadian companies have no significant effect on investment returns, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian
public policy think-tank.

“While government regulators and some industry executives promote the benefits of ESG investing, there’s no evidence of significant advantages for investors,” said Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of ESG Investing and Financial Returns in Canada.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) is a movement designed to pressure businesses and investors to pursue larger social goals. In Canada, due to government securities regulation, publicly-traded companies must disclose ESG-related
information on a range of issues including environmental impact, human rights, and equity and inclusion.

ESG advocates claim that government-mandated ESG disclosures improve the financial performance of companies.
However, the study—the first empirical analysis of the relationship between changes in the ESG rankings of Canadian publicly-traded companies and equity returns— tracked 310 companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange from 2013 to 2022 and found no significant relationship between changes in ESG ranking (upgrades or downgrades) and financial returns, as measured by the price of shares and dividend income.

In other words, advocates for greater ESG disclosures cannot accurately claim—based on Canadian evidence—that requiring companies to provide more information for ESG rankings will significantly affect the financial performance of Canadian
investors.

“Better performance on ESG rankings simply does not translate into better financial performance for Canadian firms,” Globerman said.

  • ESG investing incorporates environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) considerations into investment decisions. Until recently, ESG-themed investing comprised an increasing share of investments made by professional money managers and retail investors.
  • Financial industry executives and regulators who have promoted ESG-themed investing argue that it will enhance investment performance either by increasing asset returns and/or by reducing investment risk.
  • However, empirical studies, on balance, find no consistent and statistically significant evidence of a positive relationship between the ESG rankings of individual companies or portfolios of companies and the financial performances of those companies or investment portfolios.
  • Most empirical studies have focused on US-based publicly traded companies. To our knowledge, this study is the first to focus on returns to ESG-themed investing for Canadian-based public companies.
  • Using data from MSCI, a leading ESG ratings provider, we estimate the statistical relationship between changes in ESG rankings of companies and changes in equity returns for those companies using a sample of 310 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 2013 and 2022.
  • Our study finds that neither upgrades nor downgrades in ESG ratings significantly affect stock market returns.

Adobe PDF Read the Full Report

Continue Reading

Trending

X