WHO wins?
In the past 2 months, there has been much fanfare about the WHO Pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulations or IHR amendments. Some aspects of these amendments and pandemic preparedness treaty relate to ways to address misinformation and disinformation, strengthening surveillance and the concerns of further lockdowns and coerced vaccination approaches based on the so-called lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has extended the negotiations for the Intergovernmental negotiating body to finalise the Pandemic agreement. On 1 June 2024, the WHO held its annual meeting of its 194 member countries and agreed a package for critical amendments to the 2005 IHR, which give the WHO power over the definition of what constitutes a pandemic emergency, and equity commitment and the creation of National IHR Authorities. There was much pushback across the globe about these recent amendments – but is WHO winning?
The WHO have recently stated that the covid pandemic showed that no government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics alone. Thus, since infectious diseases are purportedly on the rise, it is vital to be more prepared and more resilient against future global health threats (bolded words were highlighted on the European Council of the EU website). They go on to say that the WHO member countries (of which there are 194 members) are working together on a new global instrument that aims to better protect people, communities and countries against future pandemics. The ultimate aim of the ‘global instrument’ is to ‘improve prevention, preparedness, and response to future pandemics‘. While this may sound well intentioned and laudable, we know that this is a UN-based inversion of the facts, in which the WHO would use its legislative power to corrupt and coerce all 194 countries into a globalist diktat. The pandemic treaty would have allowed binding directives to member states, but this component has supposedly been dropped – or has it? Those who think that the Road to Geneva people’s convention achieved a win in thwarting the Pandemic Treaty and IHR, may need to rethink their victory stance. The belief that proposals that would have erased dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms have been dropped is naive.
A Twitter post by Molly Kingsley as part of UsForThem revealed that “The WHO update, received, confirms that the IHRs are now ‘agreed’. This is on the basis of drafts made available in early June 2024; which have not and now cannot be reviewed by national legislatures, nor the public they purport to bind; and are in clear breach of international law as confirmed by leading lawyers both in the UK and abroad. Meryl Ness noted on Twitter: “Here is what happened at the WHO today: not much. The treaty negotiations are extended because there remains considerable disagreement. The IHR amendments are mostly inconsequential.”
Other postings revealed that almost all of the original proposals that have been of most concern have been dropped or significantly watered down. However, before opening the champagne cork, a more-accurate and disturbing fact is that many elements of the IRH update contained overreach policies within the proposals that trample on human rights norms and completely lack transparency surrounding the process, along with the WHO’s duplicitous communications approach. Significant concerns that remain in the IHR amendments include that covid interventions are a blueprint for future pandemic action, despite the fact that many beneficial treatment options were suppressed, the data around other effective treatment alternatives were censored and many doctors who chose alternatives to the ‘official narrative’ have been struck off or lost their licence to practise.
Proposals exist to strengthen pathogenic surveillance that is “hardwired in a surveillance-led prevention strategy”, which would increase the pseudo perception of a threat. Similarly controversial are provisions related to information control and behavioural science based policies that are front and centre of the WHO proposals. These have enabled the WHO to propagate public health propaganda and false ‘science’ in the name of pushing experimental gene-therapies upon the public, with no regulatory oversight for these decisions. The legal risks and impact posed by the IHR cannot be overstated. The WHO has strayed completely from its purpose; since when was it appointed the arbiter of free speech, human rights and democracy?
While many people around the world were distracted and possibly confused by the agreement terms of the WHO and IHR, James Roguski’s diligent Substack posts reveal a hidden but considerable victory for the WHO. A treaty signing ceremony was actually held in Geneva at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on Friday 24 May 2024. This signing states that patent applications for genetic resources must now disclose the country of origin. This signing also connects to a last-minute agreement for member states to adopt the amendments to the IHR. On 1 June 2024, the 77th World Assembly adopted the IHR amendments and extended the negotiations of a new ‘Pandemic Agreement’ for another year. However, a special session will be held if consensus is not reached before the end of 2024. So, this is no time to rest on our laurels and assume victory.
To understand the amendments to the IHR, we must delve into the meaning of the term ‘global public good’, which the WHO used 2 years before the pandemic negotiations started. This term is defined as “something that is available in unlimited supply.” In essence, this means that access to something is not restricted or prevented. Ultimately, Tedros Director General at the WHO wants pandemic-related products to be a ‘global public good’, which includes the availability of masks, PPE, PRC tests, vaccines, drugs, (including midazolam and remdesivir), which is very concerning.
Not one person involved in WHO negotiations has spoken about the harms caused by masks or covid tests. At the start of the pandemic, it appeared that 400 million vaccines were administered to 40 million people in the USA, giving the appearance that the USA was ‘hogging all the treatments’. This is what prompted the negotiations because poorer nations were upset that richer ones got access to all products. The WHO was not intending to attack national sovereignty, rather the WHO member states wanted to discuss the lack of equitable access to pandemic-related products. This ‘global public good’ refers to the fact that products are available in an unlimited supply in all countries.
The primary purpose of the negotiations was to ensure equitable access to all pandemic-related products for low-and-middle income countries (LMIC). These countries lacked the manufacturing capacity to provide unlimited access for obtaining masks, PPE, vaccines, tests, etc. In the final negotiations, cell and gene-based technologies were added to the list of the ‘health-related products’. In other words, the aim was to make products from the pharmaceutical industry available in unlimited supplies globally. The IHR was more a coordinating financial mechanism to enable the manufacturing and distribution capacity to be “unlimitless” for all WHO members. James Roguski explains that Articles 13, 44, 44bis and 54bis set the framework to put this in motion so that countries have an unlimited amount of finance, without defining the details of how this will be funded and prioritised, thereby enhancing conflicts of interests and corruption.
These changes have been signed up by 196 state parties under the signing of the new IHR amendments. This means that the countries who ‘missed out’ on harmful vaccines, masks and PCR tests now have equal access to these measures to ensure that totalitarianism is as widespread as possible. Notably, the IHR made provisions such that if new financing is needed, these can be looked into further, in a legally binding document. This means that there will be a huge infrastructural buildup of pharmaceutical-based emergency hospitals as well as mRNA manufacturing, genetic sequencing and prevention surveillance.
When the amendments were put forward by India and African nations they proposed new article 13A, resulting in more equitable allocation of products for their countries. In October 2022, the WHO reviewed 300 amendments by nations and published them on 6 February 2023. We never got to see the new version of amendments until March 2024. It is clear that everything had shifted and the IHR was adopted in June 2024. The United Nations put together a fund for a new business opportunity. What has been adopted for the IHR is a new trade agreement – article 34bis – to create a coordinating financial mechanism. They want an enormous trade development of Big Pharma to build capacity on a massive basis around the world.
The Pandemic Agreement advocates for, and requires Member States to commit to promote, a ‘One Health’ approach to public health management, defined as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” Despite public concern about the conflicts and incentives inherent in this funding model, in 2022 the WHO established the WHO Foundation explicitly to attract ‘philanthropic’ donations from the commercial sector. The Foundation was established explicitly to insulate the WHO from potential conflicts of interest and reputational risk, yet in its short life the Foundation has already been accused of a lack of transparency and behaviours which undermine good governance.
The lessons learnt from all these negotiations is that Big Pharma is not big enough – preexistent logistic problems, such as cold storage transfer, were not as ubiquitous as they would need universally for manufacturing to be a ‘global public good’.
On the Friday before the Assembly opened on 24 May 2024, at the WIPO in Geneva, a Treaty signing ceremony occurred and 138 nations signed it. For example, in South Africa (the first signatory) if a patent is applied for and involves genetic information – the source of genetic information has to be named in the patent and be trackable. This IHR now includes a broader remit, including gene and cell-based therapies (e.g. CRISPR). This agreement is worse than what nations originally asked for. Nations asked for allocation mechanisms, but instead got a coordinated financial mechanism so all the manufacturing can be completed by all nations to make an unlimited amount. Do we need more manufacturing capacity for jabs, tests or masks?
The WHO wants to look for pathogens with profiteering potential: they can submit whatever genetic sequence they can identify, and royalties can be gained and profits shared via contracts through the WHO. This will allow billions to funnel through the system. Any time Tedros declares a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), it can be upgraded to a pandemic emergency. At the local level – local tyrants can do the same as 4 years ago, but now there is a local supply chain. Countries that did not get the injections – have now solved this problem. Any amendments should be in bold underlined font – but ‘conveniently’ the formatting was omitted for articles 44 and 54 bis.
Any organisation or entity that helps nations during a ‘public health emergency of concern’ is in line for expenditure from this funding mechanism. Ultimately, 400 relevant stakeholders were cheering this on as all wanted a piece of the pie. The WHO is not trying to improve health; by contrast, they want to degrade health at the expense of defending Big Pharma or defraud wealth. The assembly did adopt the IHR amendments and the WHO Pandemic Treaty was not defeated. What has happened is they have settled intellectual property and finance issues. The WHO will call another session, likely in November 2024 to fully adopt the Treaty.
In essence, we are not fighting the WHO but Big Pharma, as they want to develop their model into the developing world. So, the Pandemic Treaty has forged ahead and was not defeated. The 10th meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating body was held 16-17 July in order to reach a consensus on the Pandemic Treaty before the end of 2024. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted its treaty on Friday 24 May 2024. At least 138 nations have signed the WIPO. According to a post by James Roguski, the Treaty established in international law a new disclosure requirement for patent applications whose inventions are based on genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.
The 77th World Assembly has now adopted the IHR, which has severe implications for censorship and dissent. From Oct 2022 to Feb 2023, there was a review committee that looked over the 300 amendments – and in the 97-page report published in Feb 2023 – the committee said we don’t have authority for all these things. Nations are being encouraged to push back on misinformation and disinformation. The reason why these negotiations were initiated is a trade agreement type issue, as some countries felt a shortfall for resources. Now they will have funding opportunities to create the supply chain across the world. The United Nations pact, Central Bank Digital Currency, geoengineering and climate change are all part of the bigger jigsaw puzzle.
On 29 July, a new project was initiated, aimed at accelerating the development and accessibility of mRNA vaccines developed against the human avian influenza (H5N1) for manufacturers in LMIC. In other words, the plan has now been set in motion to create an mRNA technology transfer programme within the WHO to enable poorer countries to foster collaboration, share resources and strengthen pandemic preparedness responses in the event of a public health emergency of international concern. Sinergium Biotech, a partner in the mRNA Technology Transfer Programme, has developed the H5N1 vaccines and is establishing proof-of-concept preclinical model data. Once complete, it will enable the technology, materials, and expertise to be shared with other manufacturing partners to aid the acceleration of H5N1 vaccine candidates.
In conclusion, the WHO Pandemic Treaty and IHR agreements were not defeated, they have gone full steam ahead! Already the manufacturing capacities for the next (planned) bird flu pandemic have been set in motion. Let us learn the lessons from the past 4 years. Buckle your seatbelts for another round of H5N1 bird flu vaccines, restrictions and more nonsense. But the number of people not complying to unethical authoritarian diktat is growing. The more we make people aware of this, the stronger the resistance grows in pushing back on these tyrannical measures. Currently, the WHO has won and its IHR amendments must be understood and rejected by every nation on earth. It is vital we exit from and abolish the corrupt WHO. We the people must continue to raise awareness to the real truth and not be blindsided by inaccurate information on the well-intentioned alternative media.
