[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Paul White Gold Eagle [@PaulGoldEagle](/creator/twitter/PaulGoldEagle) on x 48.1K followers Created: 2025-07-24 01:41:03 UTC 🚨BREAKING news from HHS Secretary RFK Jr.! He's taking a stand against the WHO's proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations! Why? Because they could hand over our national sovereignty during health emergencies to an unelected organization! This could lead to lockdowns and travel restrictions without any say! He's advocating for a future where we prioritize our freedoms and keep a check on global powers. HHS Secretary RFK Jr.: "Hello everyone, this is your HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I want to speak to you today about a controversial issue that could directly impact you and your family during a global health emergency. Last year, the World Health Organization's governing body made some far-reaching amendments to its International Health Regulations, otherwise known as the IHR regulations. These regulations establish the legal framework that gives countries rights and responsibilities for managing public health events with global impact. The deadline to reject these amendments is next week, and we are rejecting them. So, I'd like to explain to you why. The first reason is national sovereignty. Nations who accept the new regulations are signing over their power in health emergencies to an unelected, international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures it sees fit. In fact, it doesn't even need to declare an emergency; potential public health risks are enough for it to initiate action. If we're going to give the WHO that much power, we should at least invite a thorough public debate, especially since the agreement isn't an official treaty and it bypasses the U.S. Senate, which plays a key role in ensuring major international commitments receive proper democratic oversight. To make matters worse, the new regulations employ extremely broad language that gives the WHO unprecedented power. They require countries to establish systems of risk communications so that the WHO can implement unified public messaging globally. That opens the door to the kind of narrative management and propaganda and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic. We don't want to see that kind of system institutionalized even further. The agreement also contains provisions about global systems of health IDs, vaccine passports, and a centralized medical database. It lays the groundwork for global medical surveillance of every human being. Maybe if the WHO were an infallible authority, untainted by industry influence, we would consider accepting the new regulations. Unfortunately, the COVID pandemic demonstrated otherwise. During COVID, the WHO failed to enforce the International Health Regulations that were already in place for generations. China withheld critical information about the outbreak for at least a month and faced no real consequence or criticism from the WHO. As the 2024 Congressional oversight report put it, the WHO was misinformed, denied access to China, and used as a cover for the Chinese Communist Party's reckless action. These and other atrocities make one thing clear: we must strengthen national and local autonomy to hold global organizations in check and to restore a real balance of power. Underneath all the bureaucratic language, what's at stake here is a vision for our future. Are we going to be subjects to a technocratic control system that uses health risks and pandemic preparedness as a Trojan horse to curtail basic democratic freedoms? Do we want a future where every person, every movement, every transaction, and every human body is under surveillance at all times? Now, I don't want to be too alarmist. The new regulations aren't in themselves medical totalitarianism. In fact, they were perhaps written with good intentions, but they are definitely a step in the wrong direction. That's why we're rejecting the amendments, not only on behalf of our own citizens but the whole world. After all, America could simply ignore the WHO. But few other countries are as powerful as the United States. XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [rfk](/topic/rfk) [breaking news](/topic/breaking-news) [eagle](/topic/eagle) [Post Link](https://x.com/PaulGoldEagle/status/1948196699434058019)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Paul White Gold Eagle @PaulGoldEagle on x 48.1K followers
Created: 2025-07-24 01:41:03 UTC
🚨BREAKING news from HHS Secretary RFK Jr.! He's taking a stand against the WHO's proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations! Why? Because they could hand over our national sovereignty during health emergencies to an unelected organization! This could lead to lockdowns and travel restrictions without any say! He's advocating for a future where we prioritize our freedoms and keep a check on global powers.
HHS Secretary RFK Jr.: "Hello everyone, this is your HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I want to speak to you today about a controversial issue that could directly impact you and your family during a global health emergency. Last year, the World Health Organization's governing body made some far-reaching amendments to its International Health Regulations, otherwise known as the IHR regulations. These regulations establish the legal framework that gives countries rights and responsibilities for managing public health events with global impact. The deadline to reject these amendments is next week, and we are rejecting them. So, I'd like to explain to you why.
The first reason is national sovereignty. Nations who accept the new regulations are signing over their power in health emergencies to an unelected, international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other measures it sees fit. In fact, it doesn't even need to declare an emergency; potential public health risks are enough for it to initiate action. If we're going to give the WHO that much power, we should at least invite a thorough public debate, especially since the agreement isn't an official treaty and it bypasses the U.S. Senate, which plays a key role in ensuring major international commitments receive proper democratic oversight.
To make matters worse, the new regulations employ extremely broad language that gives the WHO unprecedented power. They require countries to establish systems of risk communications so that the WHO can implement unified public messaging globally. That opens the door to the kind of narrative management and propaganda and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic. We don't want to see that kind of system institutionalized even further. The agreement also contains provisions about global systems of health IDs, vaccine passports, and a centralized medical database. It lays the groundwork for global medical surveillance of every human being.
Maybe if the WHO were an infallible authority, untainted by industry influence, we would consider accepting the new regulations. Unfortunately, the COVID pandemic demonstrated otherwise. During COVID, the WHO failed to enforce the International Health Regulations that were already in place for generations. China withheld critical information about the outbreak for at least a month and faced no real consequence or criticism from the WHO. As the 2024 Congressional oversight report put it, the WHO was misinformed, denied access to China, and used as a cover for the Chinese Communist Party's reckless action. These and other atrocities make one thing clear: we must strengthen national and local autonomy to hold global organizations in check and to restore a real balance of power.
Underneath all the bureaucratic language, what's at stake here is a vision for our future. Are we going to be subjects to a technocratic control system that uses health risks and pandemic preparedness as a Trojan horse to curtail basic democratic freedoms? Do we want a future where every person, every movement, every transaction, and every human body is under surveillance at all times?
Now, I don't want to be too alarmist. The new regulations aren't in themselves medical totalitarianism. In fact, they were perhaps written with good intentions, but they are definitely a step in the wrong direction. That's why we're rejecting the amendments, not only on behalf of our own citizens but the whole world. After all, America could simply ignore the WHO. But few other countries are as powerful as the United States.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics rfk breaking news eagle