Speakers from a number of conservative organizations addressed U.S. lawmakers and their office staffers on Nov. 8 at a congressional breakfast briefing on the potential dangers of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Speakers addressed the changes to the WHO in the form of International Health Regulations amendments that could become a tipping point to change recommendations from being optional to being mandatory for member nations.
Catherine Austin Fitts, who served as a U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the George H.W. Bush administration, addressed what she asserted is the pressing global need to defund the agency, saying the groundwork is being laid for financial transaction control and its implications within the broader context of health regulations and political control.
She highlighted the potential consequences of a system being set up by the United Nations agency in which taxes potentially can be directly withdrawn from individuals’ accounts should some of the regulations be put in place. Ms. Fitts, a financial expert, emphasized the importance of understanding how financial transactions are monitored and controlled going forward.
Regarding the investigation into how the WHO could affect financial issues, Ms. Fitts said that there had been an analysis of the organization’s strategies and that she believes that the agency is attempting to take “complete control” over member nations’ economies and banking systems.
Ms. Fitts delved into the convergence of “one health” and financial transaction control, describing it as an intricate and efficient mechanism for asserting political and economic control over regions, including over, e.g., real estate, should the WHO be able to exert control over the economy.
She pointed out how the declaration of a pandemic and subsequent quarantine measures might affect real estate prices, especially when combined with financial transaction control.
A comprehensive system is being put in place to exert central control over the economy, particularly the banking system and financial transactions, using health rules and regulations as a means of asserting control and jurisdiction, she said.
The former public official emphasized the significance of individual sovereignty, including financial transaction freedom, and the need to protect these freedoms.
“A sovereign nation has an obligation to protect the sovereignty of its individual citizens. There’s governmental sovereignty, but there’s also individual sovereignty.” Ms. Fitts said. “Part of that sovereignty is held freedom, part of that sovereignty is financial transaction freedom. My concern is the financial transaction control.”
Dr. Meryl Nass of the Alliance for Human Research Protection also spoke about the potential harms of the WHO’s moves to expand its control over member nations, pointing out that the international organization is moving toward categorizing more issues as health issues, and thus exerting more control in that way.
She speculated that one significant reason for the WHO to make such moves could be the potential for nations to borrow substantial sums of money under the guise of addressing health-related issues. These funds can then be allocated to industries that have close ties with the governing authorities, raising concerns of favoritism and corruption, or even of calling in those debts at some advantageous time in the future.
Dr. Nass also emphasized that this expanding definition of health could serve as a pretext for implementing digital passports related to vaccinations. Such digital certificates could be used for a variety of purposes, including travel and access to various services, thereby increasing surveillance and control.
Moreover, this approach may lead to interference with a nation’s farming and agricultural practices, which could ultimately result in centralized control over food production, she said. Dr. Nass warned that such a scenario might have significant consequences for food security and supply.
The director-general pointed to a “generational opportunity” to “form the international legal framework for strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” and attempted to dispel concerns that the agreement would cede sovereignty to the WHO or grant the WHO Secretariat powers to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates, calling those claims “nonsense.”
“You know, and we know, that the agreement will give WHO no such powers. We need your support to put this nonsense to rest. We need your support to counter these lies, by speaking up at home and telling your citizens that this agreement will not, and cannot, cede sovereignty to WHO. Period.”
