5 Filters

What's David Cameron got to do with it?

The new WHO treaty that will bind governments into following WHO orders when there is a Disease X (or when Tedros says there is, or might be) only two months away.

Both David Cameron and Andrew Mitchell (of plebgate notoriety) have been brought in from the cold after long absences.

Both have relevant form - Cameron with Gates and the WEF, and Mitchell with GAVI (ie with Gates).

John Stone weighs it up, in a pair of articles.
Stone has been a vaccine campaigner for a very long time, and throughout this period has more than held his own in discussions in BMJ online. He is UK editor of Age of Autism.

3/3/24 Sunak, Mitchell and Cameron and the WHO.

John Stone reveals damning evidence of senior government involvement in WHO and GAVI - explaining the government’s refusal to discuss the WHO ‘Pandemic’ Treaty

Jeffrey Peel

Guest Post - by John Stone

Despite receiving a petition with over 100,000 signatures, the UK parliament refused (just a few weeks ago) to hold a debate about the UK’s continued membership of the World Health Organisation. In this guest post, John Stone provides a possible explanation - that senior Conservative Party politicians are completely entwined in the workings of the WHO and GAVI - both of which are heavily bankrolled by Bill Gates.

Image: Andrew Mitchell with his friend Bill Gates

We know that thousands of people across the United Kingdom have grave concerns about the UK giving up its sovereignty over public health matters to supranational bodies that are heavily controlled by nefarious actors. But many will be surprised that the Prime Minister, Andrew Mitchell and David Cameron have become so captured by WHO and Gates that they are ignoring the better interests of the United Kingdom and UK taxpayers.

In just two months a critical meeting of the World Health Assembly will take place. This meeting is supposed to finalise the terms of two politically oppressive and financially onerous agreements: the WHO Pandemic Treaty and the updated International Health Regulations.

In light of this, it might be useful to revisit information I published last year about Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s rehabilitation of Andrew Mitchell (of “Plebgate” infamy) and former Prime Minister David Cameron who, together, instituted the British government partnership with Bill Gates’s Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI) in 2011 - committing £billions of taxpayers’ money.

It should also be noted that it was only disclosed - in a petition debate about the International Health Regulations in December 2023 - that Mitchell was the chief Foreign Office negotiator for the two WHO agreements.

Moreover, it is now evident that although the government’s position was opaque and ambiguous at the debate in December it is not proposing to reveal any more details before the agreements are supposed to be concluded in May, by which point it will be very difficult for the UK and other nations to extricate themselves from them.

Days after Cameron’s appointment, the British government hosted the so-called Global Food Security Summit in which Sunak, Cameron, Mitchell and Tedros all toasted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation while Mitchell also paid particular tribute to Tedros:

“I now have particular pleasure in calling Dr Tedros, the head of the WHO, a friend of many of us who does incredible work against an extraordinarily difficult background”

About all this, of course, there is an incredible lack of transparency.

The event was hosted by the UK, UAE and Somalia and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation - an organisation founded by Net Zero proponent Sir Chris Hohn.

Hohn, meanwhile, also bankrolls Extinction Rebellion.

In his mysterious rise to power it should be noted that Sunak is himself a former employee of Hohn and his hedge fund, Children’s Investment Fund Management.

We should note that even parliamentarians are beginning to worry about the integrity of the medicines licensing agency the MHRA which in turn is in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WHO in manufacturing products it is supposed to be licensing (or the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is on its advice).

None of this should be be happening without public scrutiny and discussion.

Readers may be interested in reading John’s article in Age of Autism in which he details David Cameron’s relationship with Gates and Greensill Capital.

15/11/23 Facilitating the WHO power grab: the return of Bill Gates crony David Cameron
t’s always a good AofA day when we have a post by John Stone in the UK.

By John Stone

The return of former British Prime Minister David Cameron to office as Foreign Secretary affirms that the main purpose of the British state is really to push vaccines. In a disturbing turn of events after a punishing weekend on the streets of London provoked by the Gazan war - which has left the country politically and socially fractured as never before - present Prime Minister Rishi Sunak decided to have a cabinet re-shuffle which almost certainly had less to do with those events than promoting the forthcoming WHO accords at the beginning of next month (but for which, of course, the weekend events were a painful and useful distraction). My guess is that Sunak did not appoint Cameron to save his own political skin (actually it made him look even more ridiculous) but rather to please Bill Gates.

Back in June 2011 I was one of about ten protestors outside a hotel in the City of London in which David Cameron in the presence of Gates signed the British government up to become the principle funder of GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance - from which point, with no debate or democratic consultation the UK started to pour obscene billions of tax-payers’ money into the global vaccine industry/cartel.

One might have thought that egregious though this event was that it was somewhat incidental to the wider business of government, but in fact it turns out it was probably thematic. Dissident British MP Andrew Bridgen has told how as a new Conservative MP in 2010 he attended the first parliamentary party meeting to be addressed by Prime Minister Cameron but instead of the expected pep-talk Cameron brought with him Bill Gates, who gave Conservative MPs a lecture about his vaccine products (from 3.30)! This was not admittedly the beginning of Gates’s association with the British government as Gordon Brown - latterly a proponent of One World Government and a WHO fundraising ambassador - had brought him in as a business consultant in 2006 (as if there was any reason Gates should have concern for the well-being of British citizens or any loyalty to them). By June 2020, in a speech largely hidden from the British electorate Boris Johnson in the company of Gates was hailing GAVI as the new NATO.

In particular, Cameron’s return needs to be considered in the light of Sunak’s earlier appointment -when he came to office in October last year - of Andrew Mitchell MP also to a Foreign Office role. Mitchell too, was a long associate of Gates who was present at the 2011 GAVI meeting and had not been in government for 10 years after an altercation with a Downing Street policeman. Like Cameron he was never expected to return to office. Now with barely two weeks to go these two gentleman are in pole position to ease the passing of the WHO accords, and negotiate away the sovereignty of the British people without even the remotest Parliamentary scrutiny.

Even more perplexing is Cameron’s deep involvement in the Greensill scandal which was even candidly reported by Wiki:

During Cameron’s premiership, the financier Lex Greensill, was an unpaid advisor who had access to eleven government departments… In 2018, Cameron became an advisor to Greensill Capital and held share options in the company… reportedly worth as much as $60 million as well as being paid over $1 million each year for 25 days work per year.A Panorama investigation concluded that overall, through a combination of his salary and share sales, Cameron earned around $10 million before tax for 30 months part-time work.

In 2019, Cameron arranged for a private meeting with Lex Greensill and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock; under Hancock, several NHS trusts went on to use Greensill Capital’s Earnd app. In 2020, a few months before Greensill Capital collapsed, Cameron lobbied the government to bend the rules to allow it to receive Covid Corporate Financing Facility loans…He sent several text messages to Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, who ultimately declined to help Greensill; Cameron also held ten virtual meetings with permanent secretaries Tom Scholar and Charles Roxburgh to try to obtain money for Greensill…The government-owned British Business Bank lent Greensill up to £400m through a different scheme, leading to a potential £335m loss to the taxpayer…


Bill and Melinda Gates, and David Cameron at the WEF.

So, what possible motive could Sunak have for rehabilitating Cameron now?



What Can Parliamentarians Do about the WHO?

Excellent round up and advice from Meryl Nass of angles that might prove fruitful in opposing the WHO amendments - that seemingly amend all people into objects of its own possession.

“The WHO’s draft Pandemic Agreement of October 30, 2023 and the two later versions attempt to globalize the US’ 2005 PREP Act.”

This could all be regarded as a key stage in a long war against informed consent, which for many in power (and their obedient servants with medical degrees) is a pesky concept they wish had never been invented.

Comments are interesting too.

It’s well laid out for a skim. Not fun reading for your MP if they were hoping you had asked for a meeting in order to rant about the latest gossip.

What Can Parliamentarians Do about the WHO?

The WHO may not be under the jurisdiction of any court, and its staff has diplomatic immunity, BUT IT IS NOT UNTOUCHABLE.

  1. The WHO’s draft Pandemic Agreement of October 30, 2023 and the two later versions attempt to globalize the US’ 2005 PREP Act.

The PREP Act created a new pathway for the use of experimental products, without formal informed consent, without the approval of an Institutional Review Board, and with the removal of due process so that parties injured by such experimental products had no means to sue anyone for their injury. This law is what enabled the COVID vaccines to be used on the entire US population despite minimal true testing. We believe it to be unconstitutional but it has not yet been successfully challenged.

The Pandemic Agreement demands that nations create a legal and administrative pathway to enable the use of unlicensed drugs and vaccines for their citizens, and further demands that any liability resulting from such poorly tested or untested products be “managed” and that liability be waived, and that a “no-fault” compensation mechanism be created. In the US only 11 of 12,000 applicants have so far been compensated for COVID vaccine injuries with a total payout for all of $45,000.

Investigating whether similar laws exist in your country , and if so, how they came about, or if they are planned, may be productive. Here are screenshots from the draft Pandemic Agreement, aka Treaty. While this is from the October 30, 2023 draft, later drafts say the same thing.

  1. In the US, many laws were enacted in the wake of the 9/11/2001 events and anthrax letters that gave state and federal officials new powers when emergencies were declared by a variety of different officials (the President, the HHS Secretary, governors, the FDA Commissioner).

Other nations may want to investigate whether such laws were passed in their countries and whether they need to be revoked or whether the powers conferred should be limited in scope or duration, and whether the standards for declaring and maintaining emergencies need to be modified.

  1. In Article 36 of the existing IHR, state parties are called on to ratify IHR amendments. In the US there has not been formal ratification by the Senate, only an “executive agreement” and a government official’s signature for past amendments. Did your country formally ratify the IHR and its amendments in the past? If not, is it a legal treaty to which your country is bound?

  2. The UK Health Minister said on December 13, 2023 in Parliament that prior amendments to the IHR have been approved at the WHO by “consensus” rather than a formal vote of members of the World Health Assembly (WHA).

There is a video showing that “Committee A” of the WHO used a Consensus procedure regarding the 2022 IHR amendments, but no evidence that the full World Health Assembly (WHA) (194 nations) or parties to the IHR (196 nations) voted on the proposed amendments in 2022.

Twelve Members of the European Parliament wrote to the WHO on November 28, 2023 asking for evidence that a vote of the full WHA was in fact conducted to approve the amendments that were “passed” in May 2022. They requested a response in 48 hours. They have received no response.

If no actual vote by the WHA membership took place regarding new amendments in 2022, should these amendments be considered to be null and void, since there was no formal vote of the WHA as required for amendments to regulations by the WHO Constitution and the IHR itself?

  1. The EU has acknowledged that it is negotiating the IHR/Treaty for (some of?) its member states. Did your Parliament give it permission to do so? There are questions regarding whether the EU legally has the competence in public health to do so. It is seeking to claim a higher level of competence in health right now. Can you challenge this?

The EU is not a party to the IHR and is not a member of the WHO. While the EU and WHO staff claim they have the authority to negotiate these two treaties (the amended IHR and Pandemic Agreement) together, have the members of these two organizations given them the authority to do so?

  1. The WHO tries to avoid formal votes. It often fails to use the electronic voting devices built in to members’ desks, which would provide a “roll call” of recorded votes.

It also likes to conduct secret ballots, and to carry the ballots outside the voting chamber to be counted. Demand a formal, roll call vote on the Treaty and the Amendments by the full WHA.

  1. Ask for a formal accounting of what benefits the WHO has provided to your country. Ask for the amount of funds your country has provided in dues and in donations to the WHO. Ask for what specifically those sums have been spent on. Do the benefits (to your country or anyone else) justify the costs involved?

  2. Ask for more time to review the negotiated Amendments and a delay in the May votes until 2025. The WHO did not make the current IHR amended draft available by its own 4-month deadline before the May 2024 vote (see Article 55 of the current IHR). The treaty draft relies on the IHR so a vote on it should be delayed as well.

  3. Point out that the WHO Constitution restricts the scope of regulations that the WHO can issue, and the proposed regulations far exceed this scope. Therefore, many of the IHR Amendments really need to be moved into a treaty or agreement, and will therefore require a 2/3 vote of the full WHA. Here is the delineation of what regulations are allowed to cover:

  1. If your national constitution guarantees free speech, then the IHR and treaty (both of which demand that nations perform surveillance of their citizens’ speech and censor it) are both unconstitutional.

  2. The removal of human rights in the IHR goes against most national constitutions and against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which almost every nation has signed.

Furthermore, the EC’s formal response to questions posed by Door to Freedom and Iustitia claimed that:

a) “Article 3 of the proposed IHR respected dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of person”–even though this language was crossed out in the amendments

b) "… the EU proposes to insert a specific article on human rights in the pandemic agreement, stipulating that the implementation of the agreement “shall respect, protect and fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons, and be in full compliance with international humanitarian law and principles.’”

Professor Francis Boyle notes that humanitarian law is about protecting civilians during wartime and is very different than human rights law and does not provide human rights guarantees.

Parliamentarians might challenge the WHO documents on the basis of human rights. It should be noted that language guaranteeing human rights was just introduced in the March 7, 2024 version of the treaty aka Pandemic Agreement. Human rights guarantees have been moved in and out of prior drafts, as the draftees appear to believe our human rights are negotiable.

  1. The WHO proposed in its February 2023 amendments to gain the power to restrict medications or other health measures if they were deemed “disproportionate or excessive.”

Restricting medications from patients and doctors is unethical and illegal. There exists no justification for the WHO to take on such an unethical and inhumane power.

Door to Freedom hopes this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Meryl Nass, MD



Hi @Evvy_dense , thanks for these links - sadly I doubt the UK parliamentary sociopaths will change anything, the amount of propaganda still smothering the UK probably means that more than half the people still believe that the Covid jab was and is “safe and effective” and thank the WHO for it! ( I don’t know if there are any current polls on this? )


1 Like

Every day I’m surprised at the number of people who know nothing about what is happen in our world. These are people who are educated (many university graduates), read ‘newspapers’ or watch ‘news’ on tel-lie-vision (h/t to whoever first used that) and some I even used to call friends or family.

They know nothing at all about harmful side effects of the jab. They think the WHO is an inter-governmental body. They have never heard of the WEF. Finally (and then I’ll stop my rant), those eejits that did work to support the Ukrainian nazis and their poor displaced refugees, don’t ever mention Palestine or Gaza.

Oh well. I’ll soon be able to vote again for the leading lights of the UK ‘government’ so I guess everything will be all right.


(Lol the Tel-lie vision :laughing:)

@PatB: “Every day I’m surprised at the number of people who know nothing about what is happen in our world. These are people who are educated (many university graduates), read ‘newspapers’ or watch ‘news’ on tel-lie-vision (h/t to whoever first used that) and some I even used to call friends or family.”

Me too. It’s been much talked about - why are so few people keen on looking below the MSM surface to find out not only what has really been happening, but who to trust, who to mistrust and who can be reliably presumed to be deceiving the public.

Most theories I think revolve around fear, conflict of interest or indifference.

Here’s a new one - it’s about joy.

Joy is Cremola’s big news - the reason he’s upturned his outfit, dismissing CEOs.

And as if to prove it he’s made a new commitment - to restore his output to full public view. Since about 18m ago he has been putting them behind a paywall after 48 hours, to protect them from cyber attacks and threats.
I don’t know what’s changed in that regard - maybe he is opting for expensive protection.
He says he intends to publish 12 books this year.

He explains some of his rationale in his latest piece - which no longer needs to be grabbed, it’s not going anywhere.

I just read it the once but some of it chimed.
So I wondered if he has a point. If you tell someone you know what you think is happening they usually shrink a bit. It’s daunting to start delving, knowing fine well you’ll see clam and counter-claim and soon be immersed in confusing labyrinths of stories, and trying to juge the reliability of sources that are unfamiliar .

Whereas if you’re already used to it, there is less discomfort; as not only did you know many disturbing truths already, but knowing your way about you get to the bottom of things - as you see them - much more quickly.
Also if you already have a view, that ‘bottom of things’ will be rewarding as it will increase your base of knowledge and support your vested beliefs. What you learn might not exactly provide ‘joy’ itself - it might be completely hideous - but there will be a feeling it was worth the digging, that something useful resulted.

I think I obsevrved before that most people I know who questioned the covid narrative - beyond the low hanging fruit of the superfical government ‘incompetence’ narrative - seem to have had past interest in challenges to the media narratives. It’s by no means enough to create a readymade hard-boiled critic, but it’s a good start, one that most people probably lack.

I might be off piste with my interpretation.
But anyway, the Cremola piece is here:


From Censorship to Liberation: My Bold New Move

In a groundbreaking shift, Mercola.com challenges the status quo by offering unrestricted access to its treasure trove of health resources. Explore how this pioneering approach is set to inspire change and empower individuals worldwide to take control of their health journey.

Here’s the summary:

Exciting News Announcement: A Bright New Chapter Unfolds!

Story at-a-glance

Good news: We have decided to remove all restrictions on our content. We migrated all our content from our Censored Library on Substack back to Mercola.com, and will refund your most recent subscription fee. So, all content will again be available on Mercola.com, for free
My journey has led to the discovery of essential health insights, yet I’ve come to the realization that knowledge alone isn’t enough. True empowerment stems from a connection to Spirit, and Joy serves as a guiding metric for making decisions that empower and enrich our lives
While I have played a pivotal role in enlightening millions about the truths of health, my newfound objective extends far beyond that. My goal now is to guide you through a transformative approach focused on increasing joy


Resistance to the power grab using the WHO is forming

Dutch Parliament Votes to Instruct the Government to Demand a Delay

From Meryl Nass.


Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

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

Meryl Nass
Apr 16 \ 40x40

\ 18x18 \ 18x18 \ 18x18 \ 18x18 READ IN APP\ 18x18

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

1 Like

In other exciting Mercola news. . . .

I imagine the next revelation he relays will involve wanking and blindness (but only if you’re tired afterwards and rub your eyes. . .).


I clicked through to the source article and see that six authors are credited…

They highlight how nose picking could be a plausible route for infection especially if your hands are contained with soil or feces (their spelling).

If only there was some prominent personality who could teach us about handwashing.

I think I saw ths study before, I’d forgotten about it. How worrying :wink: