Click to Skip Ahead Dry Kibble  Wet Canned Food Feeding and Hydratation After a mother dog gives birth to her puppies‚ she needs immediate dietary support. Birthing an entire litter takes a lot of energy and she will continue to require an uptake in calories‚ fat‚ and protein as the pups grow and rely on her for their nutritional needs. Providing your lactating female with proper nutrients isn’t necessarily challenging‚ but it takes proper measuring and specific dietary changes. If you’re wondering how to give your nursing mother the valuable nutrients she needs‚ we have meal suggestions and other information for you. Before making the switch‚ be sure to contact your veterinarian to determine the best diet to feed your female during the upcoming weeks. Nursing Mothers Require Puppy Food Once your dog gives birth‚ her diet must be tweaked‚ and portions will need to be increased. Most nutritionists will tell you that females should switch to high-quality puppy food that is rich in protein and other nutrients during both pregnancy and after birth. Below‚ we have listed vet-recommended puppy recipes that may work best for your nursing dog. Image Credit: Rodrigo da Cruz Melo‚ Shutterstock Dry Kibble for Puppies Dry kibble is the most popular choice for everyday nutrition. It could be your preference due to its long shelf life‚ dental health perks‚ and wide availability. We have chosen our favorite dry kibble recipe to consider. Our Pick: Castor &; Pollux Organix Healthy Grains Organic Puppy Dry Dog Food We prefer the Castor &; Pollux Organix Healthy Grains Organic Puppy Dry Dog Food. It is incredibly healthful‚ supporting the mother with high calories and protein along with nutrient-rich ingredients. Wet Canned Food for Puppies Vets will usually recommend more palatable dishes during this time and wet foods can enhance appetite‚ making it an excellent topper or standalone dietary option. Feeding a nursing dog puppy food can help the puppies get some of the nutrients found in the food (such as DHA) that are necessary for development via their mother’s milk. Puppy foods are also higher in calories‚ which your mother dog needs to maintain energy levels and a healthy weight while nursing. Here is our recommendation for wet canned puppy food. Note that once the puppies are weaned‚ the mother should be fed food formulated for adult dogs‚ but the puppies can still eat the puppy food. Our pick: Hill’s Science Diet Puppy Chicken &; Barley Entrée Canned Dog Food The Hill’s Science Diet Puppy Chicken &; Barley Entrée Canned Dog Food would make a terrific diet for your nursing mother dog‚ as it is specifically geared to match their nutritional needs. The recipe is crafted to boost immunity and enhance mobility. Feeding and Hydrating Nursing Dogs In addition to transitioning the mother to puppy food‚ other bases need to be covered regarding overall nutrition. Here are a few other key concepts to keep in mind during the nursing stage. 1. Offer Liquids Right Away After your dog gives birth‚ she will be very tired and often thirsty. Having fresh‚ clean water available to your dog continually is crucial during nursing weeks. She should be able to drink freely with easy accessibility. Monitor her liquid intake and make sure you keep the liquids debris-free. Keep an eye on the dish and provide fresh‚ clean water as needed. In some cases‚ excessive thirst can indicate a bigger problem. If you notice that your dam is not satisfied or seems abnormally thirsty‚ it could indicate a serious health condition called eclampsia. Since this condition causes a life-threatening drop in calcium‚ it’s best to monitor her from birth up until the third or fourth week postpartum. If eclampsia develops‚ you may notice she acts disoriented or agitated or shows an inability to walk. This condition requires immediate veterinary attention. So‚ if you suspect eclampsia‚ don’t delay getting the proper treatment. 2. Bring Food and Drink to Her After birth‚ many mothers are reluctant to leave their puppies to fulfill even the most basic needs. This behavior is especially common among new‚ inexperienced mothers who have never had a litter previously. It is best to help your dog avoid unnecessary disruption by bringing food and water to her. She will still be able to care for her puppies without the stress of getting up or going out of sight. Once your dog is acclimated to the nursing process‚ you can eventually put food anywhere you wish. Image Credit: Christian Mueller‚ Shutterstock 3. Make Food More Desirable It isn’t uncommon for dams to lose their appetite after birth. She may not show the same desire for food for hours or even days afterward. Because her intake of calories is such a crucial element for her health‚ however‚ owners must encourage eating. Your nursing dog should have a substantial appetite to keep up with the calories she is losing after whelping. To enhance her appetite‚ you may need to make food more desirable by adding broth‚ meats‚ yogurt‚ egg‚ and or other sense-triggering food additives. If your dog still seems disinterested in food or the decrease in appetite is worsening after 24 hours‚ contact your vet right away. Prolonged lack of appetite can be a sign of health issues like metritis‚ a potentially life-threatening uterine infection. 4. Increase Food Portions as Needed Your dog will need to replenish all the calories they are losing to nourish their pups. Up until 8 weeks postpartum‚ she will require a major uptake in food portions to reap the benefits of added nutrients. Generally‚ the mother will require two to four times the number of calories than that of a normal adult dog. Her calorie needs usually peak around three to five weeks and slowly decrease as the puppies start the weaning process. Increasing the number of meals you feed your dog per day and giving her a selection of healthy treats in between can help her body sustain. According to the AKC‚ you should increase food intake by one-and-a-half times her usual amount by the first week‚ two times by the second week‚ and three times by the third week. Often owners will allow free feeding during these weeks rather than timed meal feeding. Image Credit: Snezhana_G‚ Shutterstock 5. Regularly Monitor Weight Since nutrition is gravely important during lactation‚ closely monitoring her weight is a must. Once the dam gives birth‚ weight loss happens quickly‚ which is why it is so vital to replenish her lost calories with puppy chow and other nutrient-dense foods. If the mother isn’t getting enough of the right foods‚ she can lose too much weight and miss out on those important nutrients instead. Be careful not to offer her an overabundance of food‚ either‚ as it could lead to weight gain and general upset. If you feel that she is gaining or losing too much weight‚ you can work closely alongside your vet to adjust portions to match. You can also use our calculator tool to help you here: The exact amount of calories an individual animal needs to maintain a healthy weight is variable and influenced by many factors including genetics‚ age‚ breed‚ and activity level. This tool is meant to be used only as a guideline for healthy individuals and does not substitute veterinary advice  Conclusion Learning the correct diet and portions for your lactating mother dog is vital to ensure she thrives while nursing. Raising a litter of puppies is incredibly draining and can have detrimental effects on the mother if she isn’t fed appropriately. During this time‚ it is highly advised to work together with your vet to properly monitor her health‚ recovery‚ and livelihood. Soon enough‚ she will be back to normal after having raised all her puppies to self-sufficiency. Sources https://www.wikihow.com/Feed-and-Hydrate-a-Mother-Dog https://wagwalking.com/wellness/how-to-boost-your-dogs-milk-supply https://www.cornucopiapetfoods.com/blogs/news/can-dogs-eat-eggs#:~:text=Raw%20egg%20is%20perfect%20for‚healthy%20coats%20for%20all%20dogs. https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/feeding-the-nursing-doghttps://topdogtips.com/what-to-feed-a-pregnant-dog/ https://www.nalahealth.dog/za/homemade-bone-broth-for-dogs/#:~:text=Bone%20broth%20can%20be%20useful%20for%3A&;text=Dogs%20with%20gastrointestinal%20problems‚Pregnant%20and%20lactating%20dogs https://pethelpful.com/dogs/Dog-Health-Common-Complication-in-Dogs-After-Giving-Birth https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/dog-breeding/the-care-and-feeding-of-the-breeding-bitch-part-two/#:~:text=After%20giving%20birth%2C%20she%20must‚water%20to%20her%20if%20necessary. Featured Image Credit: Shift Drive‚ Shutterstock The post What to Feed a Mother Dog After Giving Birth: 10 Great Options appeared first on Pet Keen.

Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz has suggested that there is a right-wing bias at the New York Times‚ claiming that journalists who work at the outlet can express right-wing political views but not left-wing views.Lorenz previously worked at the Times as a technology reporter."Anyone who's worked as a journalist at the NYT knows that journalists there are absolutely allowed to loudly espouse political opinions‚ you just have to espouse the *right* political opinions. Right wing opinions are fine‚ left wing opinions are not‚" Lorenz wrote in a post on Threads.Over on X‚ Elon Musk responded to a Not the Bee post about Lorenz's comments‚ tweeting laughing emojis and saying‚ "The parody writes itself.""Lol‚" Kurt Schlichter wrote when reacting to a screenshot of Lorenz's comments."This person lives in an alternate reality‚" Adam Rubenstein tweeted regarding Lorenz's post. — (@) Someone else wrote that "Taylor Lorenz out-Taylor Lorenzed herself."In another post on Threads‚ Lorenz wrote that "at the NYT I wasn't allowed to express the 'opinion' that online harassment was a bad thing‚ in the midst of having my entire family harassed and doxxed. I also once had to delete a tweet where I said I don't like living in America lol. But saying 'wokes' are taking over campus is totally fine in their book."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Holy hell‚ this is such a Dallas Cowboys story… Straight out of Jerry World!An employee of the five-time Super Bowl champion franchise is in some hot water after allegedly sneaking ticketless fans into…

Drake Maye has declared for the NFL Draft!After a fantastic college career with the North Carolina Tar Heels‚ quarterback Drake Maye announced Monday that he will be entering the 2024 NFL Draft. In 30…

“It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia‚ to execute the laws of the Union‚ suppress insurrections‚ and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes. I believe any gentleman‚ who possesses military experience‚ will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms‚ accoutrements‚ and discipline‚ are no more than a mob in a camp; that‚ in the field‚ instead of assisting‚ they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket‚ and his companion‚ unfurnished with one‚ takes it up‚ it is … The post The Editors’ Quote of the Day: appeared first on SurvivalBlog.com.

This weekly column features news stories and event announcements from around the American Redoubt region. (Idaho‚ Montana‚ eastern Oregon‚ eastern Washington‚ and Wyoming.) Much of the region is also more commonly known as The Inland Northwest. We also mention companies of interest to preppers and survivalists that are located in the American Redoubt region. Today‚ we mention the touristy town of Leavenworth‚ Washington as well as some more about political migration in general‚ and the Greater Idaho movement‚ in particular. (See the Central &; Eastern Washington section and the Region-Wide section.) Region-Wide Video: What’s Driving Greater Idaho? — December 1‚ … The post SurvivalBlog’s News From The American Redoubt   appeared first on SurvivalBlog.com.

Trends in Homesteading It’s become very popular to have a homestead milk cow.  I can see why!  No running to the store for milk.  When my children were little‚ milk was the item we were always running out of.  I love being able to open the “milk fridge” and see gallons of milk sitting there.  I love being able to make cream cheese‚ or ice cream‚ or whipped cream‚ or yogurt without having to run to the store.  Chocolate milk is a treat and is easily made when there’s plenty of milk.  In years past‚ I would have never drank … The post Milk Cows on the Homestead – Part 1‚ by SaraSue appeared first on SurvivalBlog.com.

On December 12‚ 1915 popular singer Frank Sinatra‚ who also achieved wide success as a film actor‚ was born in Hoboken‚ New Jersey. And on December 12‚ 2019‚ the British General Election was won by Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party in a landslide win with an 80-seat majority. The same day‚ the Scottish National Party also won 48 of 59 seats in Scotland. — SurvivalBlog Writing Contest Today we present another entry for Round 110 of the SurvivalBlog non-fiction writing contest. The prizes for this round include: First Prize: The photovoltaic power specialists at Quantum Harvest LLC  are providing a store-wide … The post Preparedness Notes for Tuesday — December 12‚ 2023 appeared first on SurvivalBlog.com.

Exposure to a widespread‚ toxic chemical called perfluorooctane sulfonic acid‚ or PFOS‚ may interfere with bone development in children and young adults‚ potentially putting them at higher risk for osteoporosis and other bone problems later in life Exposure to a widespread‚ toxic chemical called perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) may interfere with bone development in children and young adults‚ potentially putting them at higher risk for osteoporosis and other bone problems later in life‚ according to a new study that focused mainly on Hispanic individuals from southern California. PFOS a widespread type of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)‚ was associated with lower bone mineral density in a group of 328 overweight Hispanic children and a group of 158 young adults of mixed ethnicity. The study‚ published Dec. 6 in the journal Environmental Research‚ was unique in that it tracked associations between bone density and PFAS blood serum levels over time. “Existing research had established associations between PFAS and bone health‚ but previous studies‚ most of them only collected information at one time point from participants‚” said Emily Beglarian‚ a Ph.D. student at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. “Additionally‚ many existing studies were focused on non-Hispanic‚ white participants and many focused on older adults.”VasoBeet is now 40% OFF! This beetroot-based supplement was created to provide you with all the benefits of this nutrient-dense vegetable in one easy dose! Although Hispanic people are at high risk for developing osteoporosis as adults‚ they are often not included in research on bone health‚ said Beglarian. There are over 12‚000 PFAS chemicals‚ which do not break down naturally and have been found in at least 45% of U.S. tap water‚ according to the U.S. Geological Survey‚ and in the blood of about 97% of Americans‚ according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exposure to PFAS has previously been linked to numerous health problems‚ including kidney cancer‚ testicular cancer‚ thyroid disease‚ thyroid cancer and ulcerative colitis. Last week‚ the International Agency for Research on Cancer‚ an arm of the World Health Organization‚ classified PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Separately‚ global scientific cancer experts classified perfluorooctanoic acid‚ or PFOA‚ another widely used PFAS chemical‚ as carcinogenic to humans. Previous studies have found that PFAS may disrupt the formation of cells that build new bone material and have linked exposure to PFAS with worse bone health in both children and adults. However‚ the effects of these so-called “forever chemicals” on bone development are “a pretty new area of study‚” said Beglarian. To further understand how PFAS might impact bone development‚ Beglarian and colleagues analyzed data from a cohort of children ages 8 to 13 who were recruited between 2001 and 2012 and received follow-up appointments for about a year and a half. They also looked at data from a cohort of young adults ages 17 to 22 who were recruited between 2014 and 2018 and received follow-up appointments for about four years. For each group‚ the researchers estimated associations over time between the participants’ bone density and measurements of five PFAS chemicals in their blood serum. The young adult group‚ which was recruited a few years later than the adolescent group‚ after more PFAS regulations had been put in place‚ had lower levels of PFAS than the adolescent group. But even with less of the chemicals in their blood‚ the young adult group still showed signs of concerning bone health issues associated with PFAS exposure‚ said Jesse Goodrich‚ an assistant professor of population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine and an author of the study. “Even though we saw lower levels in the young adults that were measured more recently‚ we still saw very similar results‚ very consistent results between the two cohorts‚” said Goodrich. “Even though there are some regulations that are lowering [PFAS] levels‚ we really need larger policies to fully eradicate these‚ if possible.” Next‚ the researchers plan to investigate whether the associations they have observed are consistent over the course of a lifetime and to study how PFAS work at a cellular level to reduce bone mineral density. They also want to research the effects of newer types of PFAS‚ said Beglarian. “Some of the PFAS that we were exposed to then are different than what we’re exposed to now because there are emerging PFAS that are becoming more common‚” she said. “In our newer studies‚ we want to see if we can look at the newer‚ unregulated PFAS to see if and how those affect bone health to understand what regulations we might need moving forward.” Alex Jones Interviews Elon Musk About Humanity’s Ultimate Destiny

It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states:  No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO‚ referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR)‚ currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal‚ and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to. A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:  The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function‚ which countries undertake to enact.The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost‚ echoed by politicians and media‚ therefore raise important questions concerning motivations‚ competence‚ and ethics.Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine! The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO‚ when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens‚ more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred‚ and the legal status of such an agreement‚ is therefore of vital importance‚ particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here. The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population‚ counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA)‚ as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024‚ many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty. The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency‚ such as pandemic‚ occurs. Most are non-binding‚ and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend‚ including (Article 18):  require medical examinations;review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;require vaccination or other prophylaxis;place suspect persons under public health observation;implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; andimplement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas. These measures‚ when implemented together‚ are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals‚ as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However‚ since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics‚ despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):  Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration‚ without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9).No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy‚ family‚ home or correspondence (Article 12).Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state‚ and Everyone has the right to leave any country‚ including his own‚ and to return to his country (Article 13).Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek‚ receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19).Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20).The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21).Everyone has the right to work (Article 23).Everyone has the right to education (Article 26).Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28).Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State‚ group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30). These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty‚ and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century‚ they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva. The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1)‚Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO‚ not as an organization under the control of countries‚ but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A). States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response. As Article 18 makes clear above‚ these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here‚ then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements. States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations‚ without delay‚ including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42): Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations‚ including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16‚ shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent‚ equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures. Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products‚ technologies‚ and know-how‚” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e.‚ have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g.‚ testing‚ vaccines‚ quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it.   Of note‚ the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text‚ giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty. All of the public health measures in Article 18‚ and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1‚ New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive‚ United Nations institutions‚ including the WHO‚ have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.”  It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship‚ they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior‚ and specifically to any measures requiring injection‚ medication‚ or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction. If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested‚ then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program‚ which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span. Forced examination or medication‚ outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information‚ is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty‚ and on national sovereignty‚ then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using. The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic‚ pandemic‚ and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements‚ including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12): In the event of a pandemic‚ real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe‚ efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs‚ with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products‚ in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers. And Article 20 (1):  …provide support and assistance to other Parties‚ upon request‚ to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.  The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation‚ preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b).  Currently‚ countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities‚ apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements‚ but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group‚ not directly accountable‚ to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary. In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States‚ the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…‚ no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)‚…”‚ consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization‚ or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens. As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power‚ ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18): …and combat false‚ misleading‚ misinformation or disinformation‚ including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… As we have seen during the Covid-19 response‚ the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency‚ including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech‚ even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement‚ governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO. The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics‚ greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health‚ such as changes in climate‚ can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion‚ if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended. It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization‚ and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool). Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding? Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status‚ so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However‚ unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections‚ the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates.   The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022: We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…‚ repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration: …an ambitious‚ legally binding WHO convention‚ agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024‚ and by the Council of the European Union: A convention‚ agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention‚ preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national‚ regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. The IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status‚ WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer‚ rather than the WHO‚ is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect. The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed‚ or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force‚ after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions‚ financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain.  The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened‚ but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States‚ half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies. If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples‚ and based on false claims from governments and the WHO‚ then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest‚ and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So‚ it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process‚ or explicitly seek informed public consent. The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation‚’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters‚ the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading‚ its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign. The Need for Clarification The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s‚ and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis‚ whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis‚ malaria‚ and HIV/AIDs. No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g.‚ rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4‚000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1‚500 children under 5 years old every day). So‚ if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm‚ it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are‚ after all‚ talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function.  Don’t forget‚ Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT! To continue funding this independent operation‚ we urge you to visit the Infowars Store where you can fund the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements‚ air and water filters‚ books‚ t-shirts‚ survival gear and much more.