rachel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:42 pm
As I was saying, for no apparent reason at all, one of the first acts of the new Secretary of State for Health in the UK, Sajid Javid, the man who replaced Matt Hancock was to announce this...
Health and Care Bill: water fluoridation
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... uoridation
Dr Niger Carter, Oral Health Foundation said:
We believe that water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure there is for reducing oral health inequalities and tooth decay rates, especially amongst children. We welcome these proposals and believe they represent an opportunity to take a big step forward in not only improving this generation’s oral health, but those for decades to come.
This fact sheet explains how the government plans to transfer responsibility for water fluoridation from local authorities to the Secretary of State.
I always find it interesting when I come across old articles and when reading, it's like someone pointing out what is happening right now. Unfortunately I don't know the exact date, its first web capture is 11/11/2014. It is discussing Obama’s new Science Czar, who advocates for "forced abortions and mass sterilisation, all overseen by a planetary regime".
https://www.truthandaction.org/obamas-s ... -regime/2/
So with regards to me quoting the above, currently travelling through the UK Parliament, that bastion of muppets, is a Health Bill that intends to give complete control of the UK's water supply to ex-Deutsche Bank senior executive, Sajid Javid.
You already know what I think about him, when he's not pretending to be other panellists on BBC Question Time. Let me suggest his bio is utter hog-wash, complete with the standard rags to riches "son of a Pakistani-born bus driver" that matches diddy Sadiq Khan's bio exactly, current Mayor of London. Previous post holder current PM, Boris Johnson, who's dad is
eugenicist Stanley Johnson; and they are all, as I type, supporting Nazi ACTOR Volodymyr Zelensky.
So after that awkwardly worded last paragraph, let me get on to some quotes that caught my eye.
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets[/color], or livestock.
Remember, this was co-authored by Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren.
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
…
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
Planetary Regime >>> Sustainable Development >>> Global Public Private Partnership
rachel wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:44 pm
Iain Davis summarises his two part article 'The Not So Great Carbon Reset', links below.
COP26 - Success of Failure?
Sources:
****************
UKC Article:
The Not So Great Carbon Reset – Part 1 -
https://bit.ly/3I20kHN
UKC Article:
The Not So Great Carbon Reset – Part 2 -
https://bit.ly/3fmXWPy
Remember the UN troops in Canada who didn't wear badges and beat people up?
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
And under the guise of COVID-19 mismanagement, remember western governments failed to enact any of their emergency preparedness plans because no emergency was ever called. Instead they all used smoke and mirrors by quoting the WHO, then passed pre-written in detail emergency legislation so they could stop inquests, give doctors indemnity against gross negligence, put a vast stave of old people on "Do Not Resuscitate" then medicate them to death, section people on the say so of one doctor, post out abortion drugs to anyone without in-person consultations based on how pregnant women thought they might be for at-home abortions, stopped all cancer treatments and elective surgeries no matter what, etc, etc. And we get this from the very same criminals...
World Health Assembly agrees to launch process to develop historic global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response
https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-202 ... d-response
In a consensus decision aimed at protecting the world from future infectious diseases crises, the World Health Assembly today agreed to kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said the decision by the World Health Assembly was historic in nature, vital in its mission, and represented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen the global health architecture to protect and promote the well-being of all people.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the many flaws in the global system to protect people from pandemics: the most vulnerable people going without vaccines; health workers without needed equipment to perform their life-saving work; and ‘me-first’ approaches that stymie the global solidarity needed to deal with a global threat,” Dr Tedros said.
“But at the same time, we have seen inspiring demonstrations of scientific and political collaboration, from the rapid development of vaccines, to today’s commitment by countries to negotiate a global accord that will help to keep future generations safer from the impacts of pandemics.”
The only real "global threat" is the one-trick-pony "VACCINATE THE WORLD" United Nations and its Global Public Private Partnerships.
Parliamentary questions
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/do ... 21_EN.html
On 1 December 2021 the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached a consensus to begin the process of drafting and negotiating a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
An intergovernmental negotiating body will now be constituted and hold its first meeting by 1 March 2022 (to agree on ways of working and timelines) and its second by 1 August 2022 (to discuss progress on a working draft). It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument by 2024.
Many who favour the treaty believe that it offers the best way to increase political commitment from states to reform global health governance. However, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that this proposition has no basis in fact. Government responses to COVID-19 have purportedly violated or manipulated many treaties, including human rights agreements.
To what extent will the Commission ensure that the citizen, who has no direct vote in a body such as the WHO, is not bypassed in the decision-making process and that a shift of competence further and further away from the voter does not lead to an increasing ‘de-democratisation’ of our society?