The WHO Pandemic Agreement is not settled or off the table, quite the contrary. Just one month ago, the 11th round of the WHO Pandemic Agreement negotiations just completed. Supposedly, the WHO Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, admitted that not enough progress had been made. The WHO is working to finalise the ‘Pandemic Agreement’ by 11th November. The 12th and possibly final meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for 4-15 November 2024. The INB was established in 2021 by WHO to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The INB met for the 10th time in July and again on the 11th occasion in September. The intention is for the INB to agree on the final text of WHO’s proposed Pandemic Agreement so that it can be put forward and fully adopted at a special session at the World Health Assembly in December 2024. The latest unofficial version is posted here for readers. By mid-November, there is time built in to convene a ‘special session’ of the World Health Assembly to adopt the Pandemic Agreement in December 2024, before Biden leaves office. 

Meanwhile, the UN organised a meeting on 22-23 September called “Summit for the Future” on behalf of so-called stakeholders explained in a short video by Derrick Broze, at which 193 countries endorsed the “Pact for the Future”. The Summit adopted three agreements: First, the ‘Pact for the Future’, Second, the ‘Global Digital Compact’ and finally the ‘Declaration of Future Generations’. The Pact for the Future has five Chapters as follows: Sustainable Development, Peace and Security, Youth and Future Generations, Science and Technology, and Transforming Global Governance. The UN is not a benevolent organisation, and works with many globalist organisations to implement structural and economic reforms for world dominance. Many such organisations co-opt well-intentioned people at the lower levels to execute their plans, because they don’t see the larger plan. In fact, even Pandemic Treaty negotiators might be being silently removed from ongoing negotiations using other latent tactics.

These globalist measures intend to roll out a central plan for society. Both the ‘Summit of the Future’ and the ‘Pact for the Future’ are bringing us ever closer to a totalitarian state. It discusses an emergency platform, sponsored unsurprisingly by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Foundation. It also discusses an emergency platform, which is very disturbing as it will help to accelerate the progress for the SDGs and Agenda 2030. All 193 member states plan to sign this document, giving the UN total power. In this pack, it states that “Global Shocks Require Global Government”, and the UN seems to assume we cannot have national sovereignty during emergencies. As the term ‘global government’ is raising eyebrows, these documents prefer to use the language multilateralism or global governance, which amount to the same thing. The pack states a need for a “Coordinated and multidimensional international response to complex global shocks and the central role of the UN in this regard”. The UN defines global shocks as “events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population”. 

The UN further posits that these shocks require “a multidimensional multistakeholder, and whole of government, whole of society response.” Interestingly, ‘armed conflict’ does not constitute a complex global shock, but could lead to “impacts across multiple sectors”. They continue to say that potential shocks would “necessitate the activations of ‘emergency platforms’, which could grant the UN more power to respond to these apparent emergencies.” The document presented at the Summit says the UN will present member states with “protocols for convening and operationalizing emergency platforms based on flexible approaches to respond to a range of different complex global shocks”. 

While the UN claims that these emergency platforms will only be convened for a finite period and will not interfere with national sovereignty, there are concerns that the UN would seize upon these platforms and grant the UN new legal powers. They can bury such changes into the ‘Pact of the Future’. The plot takes a further twist as the Climate Governance Commission (CGC) have called for the UN to create a planetary emergency declaration. Indeed, the CGC released a report entitled ‘Governing our Planetary Emergency’, which advocates for further governance. Ultimately, the push for an emergency platform is part of the ‘Pact for the Future’ to reinforce the notion that humanity is facing a planetary emergency that requires the UN’s influence and authority to be ramped up. The outcomes to all these pacts are the same: a UN with more authority to act and compel nation states to comply with its edicts. This is confirmed in the Pact of the Future document: “We will transform global governance and reinvigorate the multilateral system to tackle the challenges, and seize the opportunities, of today and tomorrow.” 

A lot of this is about resetting the financial system, and the UN is planning to invoke the UN charter and potentially a UN-based national security council. We should be cautious about centralised currencies, such as those developed in Russia and China (BRICS). There is a plan to review the UN charter by 2026, and plans to reform the international financial architecture, so that it “supports countries equitably during systemic shocks and makes the financial system more stable”. However, as the progress of the UN SDGs has slowed down in recent years, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) have been drawn up to provide a solution to the financial reset. Likely, they will sign this pact and will include emergency measures and a new financial architecture. 

We must pay attention to these orchestrated measures that are occurring in lockstep, such as the New Public Health Bill in Northern Ireland. This Bill would permit forced entry into people’s homes and potentially forced vaccination if deemed necessary for public health, which Sinn Fein has already opposed. Notably, this might be a test for how such legislation in a small part of the UK can then be rolled out across the entire country. The legislation would remove civil rights with respect to bodily autonomy, property rights, parental rights, possession rights including animals, and the right to work as well as introducing a surveillance regime. The consultation on this new Public Health Bill would give authorities unprecedented power in a health emergency, including the ability to mandate vaccines on individuals, potentially opening the door to forced vaccinations. It also seeks to give authorities the power to detain and quarantine individuals, force medical examinations, and forcibly enter premises and confiscate belongings. It would enable children to be kept off school and close businesses and keep adults off work. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media is silent on this topic. This is a deeply disturbing bill that seeks to expand the powers of the state in ways that would violate fundamental principles of medical ethics, informed consent, bodily autonomy, medical choice and infringe many other human rights. 

In mid-October, Robin Monotti, an Italian London-based architect and film producer, who met with James Roguski, made the following statement: “I object to the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement. Medicine should only be carried out between doctor and patient and subject to the specificities of both. It’s bad enough when governments start to dictate generic medicine. Even worse when transnational bodies which are under the control of oligarchs, like the WHO, get to dictate what is and isn’t a medical emergency and mandate generic solutions rather than patient-specific approaches, which may even be: do nothing different and ignore the fear mongering!”

Roguski further qualifies the WHO Pandemic Agreement document as a “glorified, corrupt, racketeering…but it’s about business. It’s crony capitalism to funnel money through all kinds of different sources from all kinds of different donors.” As he points out, there are 400 organisations who are participating in these negotiations but no one has asked the people what they want. Roguski encourages individuals to take a stand and either record a video, text him and make their voices heard. He suggests people send him video statements that he will publish in an article compiling all the videos he receives. Video’s can be sent via email or text to: (USA) 310-619-3055 or to: [email protected]. He requests as many as possible publish their statements on social media or the internet as “your silence is equivalent to your consent…and silence means nothing’s going to change.”
On a more positive note, a bill was introduced at the end of September in the US House of Representatives that would end the liability protections Congress have given to vaccine manufacturers under the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Republican lawmakers have signed new legislation to end the broad protection from liability from injuries caused by vaccines listed on the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Childhood Immunisation Schedule. This bill is potentially a turning point in the public health landscape because, until now, vaccine manufacturers have had liability protection with little incentive to demonstrate accountability and safety. This new legislation should provide the much needed impetus for more accountability and scrutiny, which could not come sooner. Reports are now emerging in the alternative media that high-profile industry figures instrumental in the pandemic vaccine manufacturing and mandates are now being indicted or facing life behind bars for lying to the world about the covid vaccines. Watch this space!!