Original subtitles

Dr. Martin, thank you so much for joining us.

Honored to be here.

All right.

So to start with, could you give an outline to the viewers who might not be aware of it?

What this WHO international treaty that's currently being ironed out over at the UN,

what is it all about?

Well, the key points are that with the support of the financial institutions, the Rockefeller

Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Gates Foundation, we're essentially ceding the ability

to suspend all civil liberties and all of the rights associated with what we would call

the Bill of Rights here in the United States, International Declaration of Human Rights.

All of those can be suspended by a capricious determination that there's a public health

emergency and the minute that happens, there are no rights.

In a nutshell, that's what the treaty is.

And like the PREP Act was after the anthrax outbreak of 2001, which the US perpetrated

on the US so that we could get to the PREP Act of 2005, the exact same playbook is how

we got COVID to get us to this moment, which is to say, terrorize the world, convince them

that we need some giant protector state that actually has some sort of supranational ability

and then suspend civil liberties as long as they need to be suspended.

And in this particular case, at the whim of funding agencies who have no criminal accountability.

So in a nutshell, if you feel good about that, feel good about me.

Let me ask you this.

The treaty, the WHO treaty, my understanding is that it will standardize a lot of what

took place during COVID.

It'll standardize it across multiple countries, the vaccination rollout, the standards, the

reporting standards, the tracking standards, things like that.

And then it'll allow the WHO to declare certain countries that they're in a state of pandemic

and in a certain state of medical emergency.

But it'll still be up to those countries to actually act upon it.

I don't think...

No, actually, that's the way they're trying to spin it.

And that's lovely, just like the PREP Act tried to spin the emergency use authorization,

which could be done, as you know, to suspend any of the rights of any individual to actually

have informed consent, which by the way, was signed into law in 2016 under the 21st Century

Cares Act.

This is doing the exact same thing.

What it does is it allows a board at the World Health Organization to either declare an actual

emergency or declare an anticipated emergency.

There doesn't have to be any evidence.

There is no evidence standard at all.

So this is actually worse than what happened in COVID, because they don't even have a standard

that says they have to isolate a pathogen.

They don't have to isolate anything.

What they have to do is simply say, we think that there is a reason to declare an emergency.

And as such, we have to suspend travel to actually penalize member states.

There's a very big clause inside of the treaty that actually has penalties on member states

for noncompliance.

So yes, the Tejros official statement is, oh, no, no, no, everybody still has their

sovereignty, kind of like New York had sovereignty during the pandemic.

So if you feel good about how New York treated everybody during the pandemic, then you're

probably safe.

Well, let me ask you this.

I mean, I feel like in like a very practical sense, 2028, let's say Trump was in office,

the WHO declares a pandemic in the US.

I feel like Trump, if he doesn't agree with it, just tells them to go kick rocks versus

if, let's say, Biden is in office, he can agree with it and the WHO says we have to

do it this way and then we'll do it.

I feel like, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it more of like a political scapegoat

of like if the administration is ideologically aligned with this sort of agenda, then they

can just say, well, sorry, the WHO has declared that we have to do it versus like a Trump

figure or like a more conservative president would be able to say, well, no, we don't have

to actually do anything based on what they're telling us.

Well, certainly one approach, and Trump actually tried this in his first administration, is

actually just to say to the WHO, just go pound sand.

One option is to just write yourself out of the WHO.

And that's actually a viable strategy.

And a number of countries are looking at doing that.

So you're exactly right.

There is a way to actually pull the plug on it.

The tiny problem is international commerce, international travel, and a lot of other things

actually get suspended as a consequence of that.

So it's not as simple as we can just get out of jail free clause by somebody going, we're

out of the who or we're out of something else.

So reprisals are a real problem and we have to actually address those.

But we have to go back to the formation of the World Health Organization.

And a lot of people don't want to go back to 1944 to 1946 when the WHO was set up.

Very few people know that they wrote absolute immunity from all criminal prosecution into

their charter.

The only organization self-appointed with no external authority ever granted to have

the ability to write themselves out of all forms of criminal prosecution in perpetuity.

That's right in the charter of the World Health Organization.

And that right, which was actually negotiated by the Wellcome Trust and the Rockefeller

Foundation, they are the ones that paid for it.

They're the ones that put Renee Sand up as the first director.

They're the ones that actually put all of these pieces in place.

Give them the ability to act with impunity on citizens regardless of your compliance

or absence of compliance with any of the nation state decisions around the World Health Organization.

So you're right.

We can actually hit an easy button and say, well, we're opting out.

But every American citizen traveling abroad has no rights.

They can be subject to any crime for which there can be no criminal prosecution.

So if you feel good about that, yeah, there's probably a way we can actually soft pedal

this thing.

But the problem is, like we had with anthrax to get to the Prep Act, like we've had with

COVID to get to the World Health Organization Treaty, these things are set up to be terror

campaigns to modify the public's willingness to give up their liberties.

And going back to 1904, the Jacobson case, which set the precedent for this, every single

one of the public health crises was exactly for that purpose.

And the presentation I made here today goes from 1904 to every crisis since.

Playing out exactly the four year period of time between the initiation of the intervention

of emergency use and the suspension of civil liberties.

So it's only been going on since 1904.

The latest I've seen is a zero draft of the WHO treaty.

They called it the version zero draft or whatever.

That was several months ago.

What state is it in?

And what's the next step?

Is it going to be voted on at the next WHO General Assembly?

Yeah, so the great thing about that is we've been told that there is in fact no public

comment and no public exposure to the draft that will be ultimately ratified.

This is actually being done in closed door sessions and there is no public announcement

or public review, which sounds like great due process to me.

Absolutely not.

There is no public comment period and there's no ability for member states to even read

the draft until the moment they're actually in the vote.

Now, like any other legislation that gets ramrodded and we have here in the United States

many documents like the judiciary authorization bill, which gets a unanimous consent voice

resolution at two o'clock in the morning on a Tuesday when nobody's in the chamber.

The document's that thick, nobody knows what's in it.

Those are the problems we have.

So the ability for people to have a considered review and God forbid a public debate have

been thrown out the window.

Nation states will not know what they're voting on and remember during COVID and this is an

important point, people in every one of the parliaments of all of the European countries

and inside of the European Union didn't have a chance to review the Pfizer contracts or

the Moderna contracts.

Their states actually ratified those contracts, we would argue illegally, but they ratified

those contracts.

So what we know is that now those are binding contracts that Pfizer is now using those contracts

as two member states for not buying their contracted requirements of injections.

I mean, these things, which once again, we can actually say, let's stop the who treaty,

right?

It's a laudable objective.

But my point that I made in the European Union Parliament was we have to go one step further.

The World Health Organization was a criminal racketeering organization as defined by the

Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

And by that, I mean interlocking directorates defined under the Clayton Act, racketeering

and express market domination and market controls, all of which are defined under the Sherman

Act.

This was a violation of the law when it was set up in the 1940s.

And we have to go back to the foundation of what the who is and recognize since 1953,

it has been exclusively a vaccine promoting enterprise for the benefit of the people who

have commercial interest in vaccines.

That's it.

And by the way, look at every dollar that they've ever spent.

And what you find is that about an 80-20 split, what I just said is absolutely how every dollar

has been spent.

I can imagine the other side being that as the world got more connected around the turn

of the 20th century, it's helpful to have a global health organization where doctors

and medical professionals from different countries can come together, discuss what's happening,

discuss the latest advances, what's happening in this country, what's happening in another

country, something like that.

So do you feel like that's not it?

The WHO is not that...

That's a good idea, but the WHO falls short of that and they've morphed or they were formed

even not to be that, but to be something else.

Yeah, if you read their opening charter and all of the hearings that gave rise to their

opening charter from Bretton Woods in July of 1944 to its actually founding charter in

1950 and 53.

What does Bretton Woods have to do with it?

Well, that's where all the multilateral organizations were set up.

So what...

I mean, World Health Organization was one of Morgan Thow's principles was we have to

have this kind of international collaboration.

If we're going to have free and open markets, free and open trade, free and open borders,

we had to have this unified approach to health.

But what's missing from those conversations is who is writing the checks.

And back then, you can look and it's all in the Matter of Public Record, Rockefeller Foundation

and the Wellcome Trust were the check writers.

Giant surprise.

Why were they writing the check for establishing the World Health Organization?

And if you think it was because we wanted to have information sharing and research and

scientific collaboration, then you're actually not reading the actual records from those

meetings because those records were about distribution of drugs.

Those were ways in which we could actually force drugs onto countries so that they actually

had to take dumped drugs that were dumped out of Germany, the UK and the US and they

had to adopt those.

So, you're right.

I mean, exactly what you're saying.

In an interconnected world where we have air travel and sea travel and we have all of the

flow of people, we absolutely should have the ability to monitor and surveil the conditions

of health so that we have an awareness that says, hey, there's a problem, let's intervene.

But the problem is that we have to have a financially disinterested party making those

determinations and making those surveillance observations.

Because the minute the people who have a financial incentive to have gain from the decision to

declare a pandemic, the minute they're the ones who are collecting data, guess what data

they collect?

Giant shock.

They're going to collect the data that actually justifies their existence.

Remember that in 2018, remdesivir, one of my favorite targets, remdesivir was too unethical

to put into Ebola clinical trials in Africa because it had a 53% kill rate published in

medical journals.

Ebola doesn't have a 53% kill rate, but it was chosen in April and May of 2020 to be

the drug of choice to treat COVID.

This drug was too unethical to use in an African clinical trial because it was killing 53%

of the people that it was given to.

And we had Anthony Fauci, Deborah Burke sitting next to the president going, we need to use

remdesivir, despite the fact that the World Health Organization said it was unethical

to use it.

Here's the problem.

The problem is as long as the financial interest that dictates what product is going to be

promoted is the one making the declaration of the pandemic, we have no possibility for

accountability.

We have no possibility for justice.

And what we do is we allow people who were formed out of the Eugenics Office, Carnegie

Mellon in 1913, that same group of people that were the same group of people that established

the World Health Organization in 1953, that same group of people are the ones who are

making this decision.

And I don't know how you feel about eugenics, but I have a problem with it.

Well, doctor, thank you so much for your insight.

You're very welcome.

And we look forward to finding out what they're planning for the future inanka.