The new IHRs did get approved last night but with mainly inconsequential changes. A big victory against the WHO's global biosecurity CONTROL agenda

 

The diplomats in Geneva were called back for yet another Plenary meeting, to approve a new version of the IHR amendments dated TODAY, June 1, 2024.  Finally they approved this version and their meeting ended at 10:48 pm.  This is what was approved:

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_ACONF14-en.pdf

The bolded words are what has changed from the existing International Health regulations.

I am pleased to report that the document is a “vanilla” version from which all terrible items have been removed, with one exception and one partial exception. I have made screen shots below to show what the problems are.

The one odious item is the agreement to “address” misinformation and disinformation. But as I explained earlier, this is already being implemented by our nations, so it is not new.

The section that demanded digital health documents aka required digital IDs is gone; now both paper or digital health documents can be acceptable during a declared pandemic. The earlier detailed demand to prove the “authenticity” of such documents has been watered down to the need for a doctor to sign the document.  Avoiding the requirement for a digital ID/vaccine passport is huge.

Below is a list of the major bullets we just dodged that were REMOVED from the IHR amendments +/- the pandemic treaty:

• The "pathogen access and benefit sharing system," the biowarfare agent lending library--gone.

• One Health--gone.

• Medical mandates--gone.

• Digital vaccine passports (aka digital IDs)--gone.

• Blank check to WHO--gone.

• Removal of human rights--gone.

• Ability to call emergencies other than health, like climate--gone.

• Ability to restrict drugs, require vaccinations--gone

• Ability to order countries to pass laws demanded by WHO--gone

• Demand to roll out untested, unlicensed vaccines--gone

• Demand to give liability shields to unlicensed vaccines and drugs--gone

• Ability to commandeer products—gone

The globalists got essentially nothing that was important to them. They will keep trying. We will keep stopping them.  The Pandemic Treaty is to be negotiated for another year. So we can’t let up but we won the first round.

I continue to think this is a huge win.

• Costa Rica does not want to keep negotiating.

• Slovakia just rejected the entire new IHR!

• Iran warns it may reject parts of the IHR.

• Argentina laments the rapid process at the end. Calls for national sovereignty on health emergencies.

• Netherlands, in the process of changing its governing officials, will defer approval to its next government and its parliament.

• UK points out that govts can opt in or out of each amendment. The UK will vote on July 4 so the future government will make its decisions on the new IHR.

The US is not an honest broker: a) impenetrable last-minute legalese, b) a history of making reservations that enable the US to dodge compliance, and c) scuttling carefully negotiated agreements

3 Examples of how the US avoids the traps it sets for others

Meryl Nass

May 29, 2024

Example #1. Here is a resolution the US and a handful of its hangers-on proposed for the WHA to approve today. It is so full of references to other documents (by number) that it is impossible to tell what it is actually asking the members to commit to. And, since it was only proposed today (but no doubt most of it was prepared earlier) the member nations have little time to carefully review it in light of the packed agenda of the week, with meetings scheduled during 12 hours a day.

No wonder the US delegation to the 2022 World Health Assembly was composed of 65 people. They were there in part to produce abstruse documents like this, for all contingencies.

No wonder small nations cannot keep up. That is the point. This document was written to be impenetrable. And the schedule was designed to wear everyone down.

[Don’t miss Example #2, which is even more damning.]

I think the USG lawyers were too clever by half when they wrote the resolution above. Everyone reading it can see it was intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate. I doubt this document will make many friends, and I doubt it will get very far.

Example #2. Now let us observe how the US government weaves the noose around everyone else’s head, but slips out itself at the last minute.

The International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) are a treaty that the US is a party to. But the US removed itself from meeting the obligations contained in the treaty through issuing the following reservations, found on pages 60-61 of the IHR or on the State Department website. We “accept” the IHR but only “subject” to the following:

Dodge #1: The US government hid behind the skirts of its States, saying that according to the US Constitution the US obligations to the IHR might come under state and not federal jurisdiction. And in that case the USG could not promise to comply. [Well, we sure got them on that one this month! Two can play that game.]

Dodge #2: While the US insists China failed to meet its obligation to notify the world of COVID in a timely manner, the USG wanted to be able to dodge that same obligation in the IHR to report infectious outbreaks quickly. So if reporting might affect the US military and national security, the US refused to accept the obligation to report.

Dodge #3: Here is the language:

The third understanding relates to the question of whether the IHRs create judicially enforceable private rights. Based on its delegation’s participation in the negotiations of the IHRs, the Government of the United States of America does not believe that the IHRs were intended to create judicially enforceable private rights:

The United States understands that the provisions of the Regulations do not create judicially enforceable private rights.

If I understand the third dodge correctly, the USG is claiming that just because the US signed the IHR treaty, this did not convey any rights to other signatories. And therefore the US is not subject to litigation if it does not comply with treaty provisions as interpreted by other signatories.

Final Dodge: Sometimes the US goes all the way to the end with difficult treaty negotiations, then refuses to sign at the last minute. This is what happened when the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Review Conference thought it had finally achieved consensus on provisions for inspections, and punishments for noncompliance with the BWC treaty in 2001. When everything was set, the US abruptly said “NYET” and the amendments to the treaty were scuttled.

I did not understand why the US did this at the time, but subsequently realized that Cuba alleged that the US used biological weapons on Cuba after the US had become a party to the Biological Weapons Convention. (Here is my recent mention of several examples.)

If true, and the evidence is very strong that it is, the US would not have wanted to be subject to inspections and investigations of those allegations.

The bottom line is that perhaps every country should be as careful to protect itself from potentially invasive or harmful provisions in treaties that it signs, as the US historically has been. This would level the playing field and make the treaty process more equitable for all.

How to Stop the W.H.O. NOW: 10 Tips for lawmakers

What can lawmakers do to stop the Pandemic Agreement (Treaty) and amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) from going forward at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting, taking place from May 27 to June 1, 2024?

1. The easiest way forward is to ask your government to demand a delay in the process, according to the WHO's failure to meet the IHR Article 55 notice requirement. 

There are less than 3 weeks until the World Health Assembly meets, and yet there are no final drafts of either treaty.  Negotiations are continuing, with meetings scheduled up until May 17. 

Clearly, nations will not have sufficient time to evaluate either final document prior to a vote, particularly as translating the documents into many languages will consume even more time.  The Netherlands' lower house of Parliament has already instructed its government to request a delay, and if there is no delay, instructed its government to vote NO on both treaties.

Amendments to the International Health Regulations are required to be shared at least 4 months before a vote on them, according to IHR (2005) Article 55(2):

"The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration."

Confirming this deadline, the WHO's IHR amendments Review Committee noted in its October 23, 2022 Terms of Reference that:

"January 2024: WGIHR (the Working Group negotiating the IHR) submits their final package of proposed amendments to the DG who will communicate them to all States Parties in accordance with Article 55.2, for the consideration of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly"

The WHO incontrovertibly missed this deadline, despite excusing itself by claiming to interpret these documents differently than their clear meaning.

While the Pandemic Agreement is a new document, and there is no specific timeline by which it is required to be shared with all member states, the WHO's Rules of Procedure (Rule 14) require that all relevant documents be made available 6 weeks ahead of a proposed meeting: 

"Copies of all reports and other documents relating to the provisional agenda of any session shall be made available on the Internet and sent by the Director-General to Members and Associate Members and to participating intergovernmental organizations at the same time as the provisional agenda or not less than six weeks before the commencement of a regular session of the Health Assembly"

This '6 week' requirement clearly applies to the Pandemic Agreement.  Therefore, the deadlines required for completing and presenting both documents to the member states, according to the WHO's own rules, have been disregarded.[1]

Instead, the WHO appears to be making up new procedures while ignoring its existing rules.  The WHO is supposed to be the servant of its member states, not their master, and it has no right to ignore the rules and push ahead with votes for anything at this late date.

2.  Can your states or provinces assert their legal sovereignty over healthcare?

The United States Constitution places responsibility for healthcare in the states and not the federal government.  Two states, Florida and Utah, have already passed legislation denying jurisdiction to the WHO in their states.  Several other states are in the process of passing legislation that will also deny jurisdiction to the WHO, and in some cases deny jurisdiction to the UN and the World Economic Forum as well.

If your nation regulates healthcare at the level of the state or province, like Germany, this may be a valid strategy for you as well. 

Furthermore, in the European Union, the EU government's level of competence to make healthcare decisions for its member nations is questionable, and its right to negotiate with the WHO, to vote and to make decisions on health should be explored.

3.  Is the proliferation or transfer of biological warfare agents, also known as Potential Pandemic Pathogens or Select Agents, legal in your nation?

In the United States, domestic regulations implementing the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention place legal restrictions on activities that are planned for the WHO's BioHub and Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system (Pandemic Agreement Article 12).  These agents cannot be transferred without permission from the US government, and there are restrictions on shipping them commercially.  These issues have not been addressed in any drafts of the Pandemic Agreement, which advocates widespread sharing of pathogens in a manner that is illegal in the US.

4.  Has your Parliament addressed the question of whether the WHO's pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) program is more likely to reduce pandemics or increase them?  Improve pandemic management or worsen it?

Increasing the number of laboratories that handle, transfer and study potential pandemic pathogens increases the risk of lab leaks, accidents and deliberate release.  Putting the genetic sequences of pathogens online, as the WHO documents require, opens the door to hackers downloading the sequences and producing the pathogens.

There are many reasons to think that the transformation of the WHO into the governor of world health during pandemics, and in some cases between pandemics, could be problematic for global health. 

The WHO is not a center of pandemic expertise.  Its handling of the two largest Ebola epidemics in 2014 and 2018-9, the 2009 swine flu pandemic and COVID is widely acknowledged to leave much to be desired.  Who decided that increased legal authority should be put into the hands of the WHO, given its poor track record on providing pandemic advice and managing pandemics?  Who decided that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to pandemic management, everywhere in the world, was desirable?  There has been no review of the WHO's functioning during COVID, which should be required before handing more authority to the organization.

5.  Does your government know that the Pandemic Agreement would give a blank check to the WHO, both in terms of the cost of its new programs, but also in terms of the scope of what the WHO will be able to do?

Drafts of the Pandemic Agreement propose creating a Conference of Parties, which will make its own rules and create its own subcommittees.  It will also be responsible for financial aspects of the PPPR program.  There are very few specifics in the drafts.  The World Bank has estimated a yearly cost for the program, including 'One Health,' of $41 billion dollars yearly, more than ten times the current WHO budget.

Dues now cover only 15% of the WHO budget.  Current dues might only cover 1% of the transformed WHO budget.  Who will pay the rest?  What benefits will donors expect to receive?  Will nations be forced to take on considerable debt for the new program?  Who will loan the money for the Global Biodefense Agenda when there will never be a positive financial return?

6.  Demand that individual votes on the two instruments be recorded (in other words, a roll call vote must be taken) and that votes must take place in the full World Health Assembly, with a quorum present.

The WHO Constitution provides several possible procedures for voting.  Yet prior votes on IHR (2005) amendments did not follow the rules.  It seems that a questionable "consensus procedure" took place in May 2022 in Committee A regarding amendments to the IHR (2005), as shown in the WHO's videos, but that the full WHA never voted, as required. 

Twelve Members of the European Parliament wrote to the WHO Director-General in November 2023 asking for evidence that a WHA vote on the 2022 amendments took place. They requested an answer in 48 hours.  Three months later, they had received no reply. 

The UK Health Minister said in Parliament on December 18, 2023, that all prior decisions on IHR amendments had been decided by consensus.  This implies there has never been a vote on IHR amendments.  Encourage your government to demand a vote according to the rules, and that a roll call is taken so nations will be accountable for their votes.

7.  Demand that your Parliament must ratify any treaties that your nation signs.

In the US, the present Administration has said it planned to sign both instruments as Executive Agreements, bypassing Congress.  Many Congressmembers, including 49 Senators, are demanding that the Senate ratify the documents, which will require a 2/3 vote in favor.  A 2/3 majority will be very difficult to achieve when 49% of the Senate has asked the US to withdraw support of the instruments.

8.  Point out that WHO officials are dishonest

Why would our nations turn over management of pandemics to a dishonest agency?

a)     The Pandemic Agreement states it will not usurp national sovereignty.  The WHO's Director-General has repeatedly said the same thing.  But this is clearly not true.  It was disputed by the UK's former Attorney-General and by 49 US Senators, among others.

b)     The Pandemic Agreement has had 5 different names during its negotiations.

c)     The WHO's principal legal officer, Steven Solomon, misled the WGIHR regarding the text and meaning of Article 55(2) of the IHR.  He claimed that because the Working Group is neither a State Party nor the Director-General himself, the four-month advance notice for submission of amendments rule in Article 55 did not apply, which is a gross misinterpretation of the document.[2]

d)     While the WHO claims that negotiating the Pandemic Agreement is a "Member State led process,"[3] in fact the process is being driven by the WHO Bureau and Secretariat to exclude many nations from having a voice.  This was confirmed in an open letter to the WHO Director-General signed by 161 NGOs, dated April 26, 2024.[4]

9.  Point out that the amendments and Pandemic Agreement are unconstitutional

In the US, strong arguments can be made that these instruments transgress the 1st, 4th, 10th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.  They also transgress other Constitutions, for example by abrogating free speech.

10.  The WHO was created in 1948 to provide advice and charitable assistance to nations, when requested.  These instruments would transform it into a "Biohub" library of potential pandemic pathogens, and the governor of global health during public health emergencies (or likely ones) whenever the WHO Director-General unilaterally declares them.

Has your Parliament discussed the ramifications of this transformation, and whether these changes in the nature of the organization is what it wishes to support?  These instruments delegate administrative authority to an unelected, non-governmental entity, a unique and rare development in international law.

Your nation can withdraw from the negotiations, and/or announce that it will not be bound by either treaty.

---

[1] https://www.ghr.agency/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/New-open-letter-GHRA-1.May_public.pdf

[2] https://simonmercieca.com/2023/11/30/why-does-the-who-get-to-ignore-the-rules-it-doesnt-like-but-it-expects-the-world-to-obey-all-the-rules-it-makes/

[3] https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHASSA2/SSA2(5)-en.pdf

[4] https://twn.my/announcement/20240428_Open-Letter-to-the-Director-General-of-the-World-Health-Organization_FINAL.pdf

The WHO wishes to be the purveyor of biological warfare agents, to control information, and enforce untested, liability-free vaccinations on the world. Here are their own words, in screenshots

Politicians at all levels have been lied to about the WHO treaty and int'l health regulation amendments--so show them the screenshots. Here are the receipts!

Full copies of the IHRs and all WHO treaty drafts can be found at https://doortofreedom.org/who-resource-page/

I start out with the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments. We don’t have an official version later than February 2023, so we don’t know exactly what will be voted on next month, but this is what the public has been shown. Everything inside a thin border with white background is verbatim from the proposed IHR Amendments.

The IHR amendments as well as the Pandemic Treaty specify that “potential pandemic pathogens” [both their sequences and actual specimens] are to be shared with the WHO and then shared globally, with the only proviso here being that WHO will not share them with “conflict and violence elements” once notified not to by a state party.

Now we move to screenshots from different versions of the Pandemic Treaty, which has had many names, but has been called the Pandemic Agreement since last October 2023. You can see that while the treaty claims to support unhindered access to information, a few pages later it demands that nations manage “infodemics” and censor misinformation and disinformation. This is typical of drafts of the treaty: it says one thing in one place and then elsewhere maintains the opposite, allowing politicians to claim the treaty asserts it does not grab any sovereignty, when it clearly does exactly that.

Another example of the WHO’s weasel words is the issue of health coverage. The WHO wants everyone to be required to pay for health insurance, and they imply that this will entitile us to a full panoply of healthcare services. But they have nothing in the documents that even begins to address providing expansive healthcare, nor even basic healthcare, for people.

An example of how sovereignty is to be grabbed is the demand for all nations to pass laws to allow the use of EUA (untested) vaccines and drugs, and the demand to pass laws to waive liability for such products.

The fact that the WHO wants to be the purveyor of open source biological warfare agents, also known as “potential pandemic pathogens” is so bizarre and extraordinary. It reflects the fact the diplomats think we are all morons and cannot see through what they are proposing—a mechanism to ensure pandemics can be started at will, by almost anyone who has received their share of these agents or has access to their online genetic sequences.

Below is from the March 7, 2024 Treaty draft. The treaty is in effect 24/7, which means that the required sharing of pathogens is to occur regardless of whether there is a pandemic or potential pandemic. It is not restricted to a response to a public health threat. It is an activity that is to occur year round, and nations are encouraged to find potential pandemic pathogens for which they can be rewarded monetarily. Wide sharing, beyond the WHO’s lab network, by the WHO and the party that found the pathogen is encouraged.

The screenshot below is from a version of the treaty that was issued in June 2023. At that time the draft coyly does not use the terminology “gain of function” but instead defines it, using the coded language “research to better understand the pathogenicity and transmissibility of pathogens with pandemic potential” to describe it. What Article 9, paragraph 5 really says is that if you are performing Gain of Function research, then “minimiz[e] unnecessary administrative hurdles for [that] research.” In other words, loosen the strictures, and thereby enable more lab accidents/spills/leaks to occur.

What does all this mean? First, the WHO lies and misleads, repeatedly. It is not an honest broker and should not be trusted by any nation.

Second, it is attempting to lead us into a pandemic era. One in which the WHO budget will skyrocket to at least ten times its current level, according to the World Bank.

Third, the WHO is breaking international laws and norms to do so. It must be stopped.

 

HOT! Today Dutch Parliament Votes to Instruct the Government to Demand a Delay in both WHO votes--and if no delay, to vote against the proposals

This motion got a majority vote of the Dutch Parliament !

MOTION BY MEMBER of the Dutch Parliament Mona KEIJZER ET AL.

Proposed April 10, 2024. A majority voted in favour April 16, 2024

After hearing the deliberations, noting that both the Working Group International Health Regulations (WGIHR) and the International Negotiating Body (INB) are authorized to deliver the final legal formulation of the envisaged amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the Pandemic Treaty to the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA), which will take place at the end of May 2024; noting that this process is proceeding at an unprecedented pace, whereas such far-reaching measures require more time to be considered, reviewed and properly implemented; whereas ignoring procedural obligations under IHR and leaving unclear the link between the amended IHR and the new pandemic treaty undermines the international legal order and thus the democratic legitimacy of this regulation in violation of Article 55 of the IHR, which requires proposed amendments to be submitted to the Contracting States at least four months before deliberation and voting in the WHA; whereas this does not provide sufficient opportunity to examine the changes and their important legal, health, economic, financial and human rights implications; whereas the request to adopt the amendments to the IHR or the text of the envisaged pandemic treaty is not in line with the UN principles and guidelines; instructs the government to request a postponement of the vote on the amendments and thus on the IHR and the new pandemic treaty at the World Health Assembly and, if this postponement is not obtained, to vote against the proposed amendments to the IHR and the new pandemic treaty as a whole;

and proceeds to the order of the day.

Mona Keijzer, Daniëlle Jansen, Fleur Agema  Members Dutch Parliament

Why States Can Assert that the WHO Has No Authority Over Them: Summary of the Evidence

This is a compilation of the important info I have been dropping as individual tidbits over the past few days regarding states power over health regulation.

Why Can States Assert that the WHO Has No Authority Over Them?

•      The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the regulation of healthcare falls to the states.  For example, doctors, pharmacies and hospitals are administered by the state, not by the federal government.
•       This is why Louisiana's Senate unanimously passed a bill 37 to zero telling the world that neither the WHO, the UN nor the WEF could assert any jurisdiction over health or any other matter in the state of Louisiana.
•      This is why the Florida legislature passed a bill last year allowing the WHO no authority over the state of Florida.
•      On the last full day of the Obama administration, the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Disease Control issued a Final Rule that changed the definition of a Public Health Emergency of international Concern.  It was to be defined 5 ways, but 3 of those ways relied on a WHO decision.
•      This rule was challenged in a petition to DHHS by 15 state Attorneys General in 2023.  They pointed out that, "The rule exceeds the agency's authority and infringes on US and state sovereignty by unlawfully delegating to the World Health Organization the authority to invoke health emergency powers solely based on decisions of the WHO."
•      The AGs further noted that Congress' assent would be needed to delegate such authority via treaty ratification to the WHO.  They assert that executive agreements, which "rely solely on the President's authority in foreign relations... lack any domestic effect without an act of Congress," and that the unratified WHO Constitution is not a binding treaty.
•       Furthermore, according to the AGs, Congress approved participation with the WHO "with the understanding that nothing in the Constitution of the World Health Organization in any manner commits the United States to enact any specific legislative program regarding any matters referred to in said constitution," referencing 22 U.S.C. 290d, while noting that 42 U.S.C. 264 (e) warns the federal government not to preempt state powers regarding control of infectious diseases.
•      Finally, when the US federal government signed the WHO's amended International Health Regulations in 2006, it filed a reservation acknowledging the states' rights authority over some health matters.  The reservation said, in part, "... these regulations to be implemented by the Federal Government or the state governments, as appropriate and in accordance with our Constitution, to the extent that the implementation of these obligations comes under the legal jurisdiction of the Federal Government. To the extent that such obligations come under the legal jurisdiction of the state governments, the Federal Government shall bring such obligations with a favorable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate state authorities."

Therefore, there is a strong legal basis to assert that the states not only have authority over their citizens' healthcare regulation, but that the federal government lacks the authority to delegate any such power to the WHO.

Rebutting bizarre assertions about the WHO's negotiations.

 

Hope this does not bore you but it is important to clear things up.

The following grossly wrong assertions were made 2 days ago by someone we had trusted:

“… you should realize the following:

• The WHO negotiations are NOT an attack on national sovereignty.

• The WHO negotiations are NOT about mandates or lockdowns.

• The WHO negotiations are NOT about attempting to seize control of the doctor-patient relationship.

• The WHO negotiations are NOT a plot that has been planned and is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party

• The WHO negotiations will NOT be countered by standing up for states’ rights, or by state nullification.”

But they are simply wrong and there has been no correction or clarification.

1. The WHO Treaty claims it is not an attack on sovereignty, but what else can you call it when the WHO will get to declare emergencies and then dictate to 196 nations what they must do; how much they must spend; whether to use specific drugs or vaccines, etc? I dealt with this yesterday here.

2. Article 18 of the International Health Regulations gives the WHO, once the word “binding” that has been added in an amendment has been approved, the power to order and enforce vaccine mandates and lockdowns.

   

The provisions in both the Treaty and Amendments dictate censorship of health “misinformation and disinformation” thus controlling what information your doctor can access. Article 43 paragraph 4 in the Amendments gives the WHO the right to order that certain drugs be withheld during a declared public health emergency. That seems like an uncountenanceable intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship to me.

4. I cannot comment on the role of the Chinese since I don’t know what it is

5. I just explained in the last post why standing up for the rights of states to regulate health is critically important, and pointed out that the executive branch lacks the authority to delegate any powers to the WHO over American citizens, in any event.

The issue of where power lies and who has the power to delegate it to the WHO is critically important for us all. This is the reason why the EU suddenly asserted that its competence in health is high and the WHO asserted that it had the authority to negotiate with the EU, despite the fact the EU is not a member of the WHO: it is an attempt to supercede individual European nations’ authority and negotiate a transfer of power from all 27 member nations to the WHO. Precisely what our federal government is doing.

This was a very important week, in which the legal issues came into sharp focus and we the people felt hopeful that we could evade the legal traps that have been set.

And that was when the “Red Herrings” post appeared on March 29, throwing large numbers of people into a tizzy of confusion. Was our movement getting too strong, and was long-established trust risked to finally try and derail us?

The March 7, 2024 version of the Treaty is the same repackaged tyranny that was found in the 6 earlier versions. Don’t get confused and don’t give up.

This is the real message of the red herrings:  

We are over the target.

A hundred globalist flunkies (including mostly has-been politicians) signed a totally misleading letter about the pandemic treaty last week. I set the record straight

My comments on the letter are in italics. A preponderance of signers are from former Soviet countries. Kerry Kennedy, on a mission to embarrass her older brother, is an outlier.

 

Mar 30, 2024

Joint letter to leaders of WHO member states calling for an urgent agreement on a pandemic accord

https://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2024/03/pandemic-accord-joint-letter/

 

20 March, 2024 5 MIN READ

 

To Leaders of WHO Member States,

The overwhelming lesson we learned from COVID-19 is that no one is safe anywhere until everyone is safe —no, the lesson we learned is that all media and public health officials were handed the identical script and it was all a lie. It was designed to make us feel guilty about not taking a deadly so-called vaccine.

everywhere – and that can only happen through collaboration. — The WHO is not asking for collaboration. It is asking to be the arbiter of supplies, deciding who gets what. The world must obey its commands. That is not collaboration.

In response, the 194 countries which are members of the World Health Organization decided in December 2021 to launch negotiations for a new international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, a Pandemic Accord, as a “global framework”  to work together to prepare for and stem any new pandemic threat, including by achieving equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.—because what the globalists want is for no one else, anywhere, to be left behind when the toxic, liability-free “vaccines” are rolled out next time.

Negotiation of an effective pandemic accord is a much needed opportunity to safeguard the world we live in. Countries themselves have proposed this instrument, individual countries are negotiating it, and only countries will ultimately be responsible for its requirements and its success or failure.—Then why do the WHO’s funders like Bill Gates’ BMGF and GAVI have a seat at the negotiating table? Why are hand-picked committees doing the negotiating? Why is the WHO bureaucracy writing much of the documents? Why is it Tedros who will issue the orders? Why are we always lied to about this?

Establishing a strong global pact on pandemics will protect future generations from a repeat of the millions of deaths and the social and economic devastation which resulted from a lack of collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic. — Actually, the response (lockdowns, closing businesses and sending people home without jobs, forcing ventilators and bad drugs and vaccines on the world) killed many more than the disease did, and it was the WHO decisions that determined this response.

All countries need what the accord can offer: the capacity to detect and share pathogens presenting a risk, and timely access to tests, treatments and vaccines.—timely access to tests, treatments and vaccines that were accurate and effective was blocked by the WHO which supported unreliable tests, bad treatments, and awful vaccines. If the WHO gains the power to impose its will on the world and there is no competition within the marketplace, nor liability for the products, we can expect the tests and treatments to be of even worse quality next time.

An agreement is meant to be reached just two and a half months from now – countries imposed a deadline of May 2024, in time for the 77th World Health Assembly.

As countries now enter what should be the final stages of the negotiations, they must ensure that they are agreeing on actions which will do the job required: to prevent and mitigate pandemic threats. —No one has produced a shred of evidence that anything suggested in the treaty or amendments has any chance of preventing a pandemic. Do tell us how that is supposed to happen, when the WHO is proliferating potential pandemic pathogens and greatly increasing the laboratories that study them while it suggested that “administrative impediments” to GOF research be removed in its June 2023 treaty draft.  This is a way to incentivize lab accidents and leaks.

We urge solutions which ensure both speed in reporting and sharing pathogens, and in access – in every country – to sufficient tools like tests and vaccines to protect lives and minimise harm. The public and private sectors must work together towards the public good. This global effort is being threatened by misinformation and disinformation. Among the falsehoods circulating are allegations that the WHO intends to monitor people’s movements through digital passports;— Then why did the WHO take over the digital health passports obtained by the EU last June and start rolling them out already? Is it the monitoring of movements or the monitoring of finances and vaccine/health data the WHO wants to obtain? Maybe the “monitoring peoples’ movements” claim is a red herring to conceal the other monitoring going on?

that it will take away the national sovereignty of countries;—which it will of course do when the WHO can give orders to nations, require nations to pass laws to enact the WHO’s directives, and the WHO can commandeer supplies in one country and move them to another. But don’t take my word for it. Here is the evidence:

David Bell and Van Dinh explored this issue in depth. Their article is titled, " Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty?"

https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/

and that it will have the ability to deploy armed troops to enforce mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns.—More straw man arguments, like the “monitoring movements” argument above. Straw man arguments create a false assertion so the person doing the arguing can effectively argue against it, when the person is unable to argue against the actual proposal in play. No one said the WHO has its own troops and will use them. It doesn’t. But nations do have armies and police, and they were used during COVID to impose lockdowns and in some nations mandatory vaccinations. The nations are being told they must obey the WHO, and the WHO is giving itself the right, in the IHR amendments, to impose lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations.

All of these claims are wholly false and governments must work to disavow them with clear facts.—I just provided you the clear facts, flunkies.

It is imperative now to build an effective, multisectoral and multilateral approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response marked by a spirit of openness and inclusiveness. In doing so we can send a message that even in this fractured and fragmented world, cross-border co-operation can deliver global solutions to global problems.— These virtuosos write in a way that is not understandable (what do they mean by multisectoral and multilateral approach to PPPR? What do they mean by a spirit of openness and inclusiveness?) and the use of flowery language makes it appear as if they are saying something noble, when the opposite is true.

We call on leaders of all countries to step up their efforts and secure an effective pandemic accord by May. A new pandemic threat will emerge – except the idea of pandemic threats, if you remove COVID and HIV, is generally a fantasy. Less than 1000 people per year have been dying from pandemics, despite the fear-mongering. As David Bell notes,

“Generating the fear and compliance necessary to build this new and somewhat parasitic model of public health has been no mean feat. For decades, life expectancies have been rising globally while infectious disease deaths have plummeted.”

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-fairy-tale-of-pandemic-risk/

and there is no excuse not to be ready for it.—Again, pray tell, how will we be ready by signing this blank check for $41 billion/year to the WHO? How much is each signer of this letter getting?

We have been scammed on a scale never contemplated. We have to wake up before we are pushed off the cliff.