5 Filters

WHO Pandemic treaty deadline update

Politics
#1

As the UK (E+W) campaign group UsForThem point out, the WHO wants to brick in the response to Covid-19 as a blueprint for the future - as the WHO and its paymasters like lockdowns, compulsion, vaccine mandates and passports and all the rest, the only problems it sees being

(i) that not only the people but their governments can reist them, and
(ii) it would be nice if they could be applied to any scenario which can be argued is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern; climate change for example; even a mental health crisis could fit the bill, as the sole arbiter will be the WHO president.

In a nutshell, the ‘optional’ nature is what it wants to change.

Some recent developments (though there is much happening behind the scenes):

Countries opted out

[Holland](16/4/24 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 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), Japan. Check out Africa news item.

Other rumblings : Austria trying to resist, Global Health Responsibility Agency (GHRA) formed.

US opposition at state level.

US states : Louisiana, Oklahoma passed legislation to block external control. Florida.
Other rumblings. Florida seemed to pass a law pre-empting federal takeover. Democrats’ Maine’s joint order was resisted.

More recently in the US, Dr Meryl Nass (who if not the de facto global opposition leader to the WHO takeover plan, is doubling up nicely as the main publicity coordinator) announced that 22 states had rebelled:

We did it!!! 22 Attorneys-General in the US have told Joe Biden that the WHO will not be making public policy in their states!

For the thousands of people who have been making calls and writing letters–you are the best! Global governance will not be starting in the US!

May 08, 2024

This is HUGE!!! Give yourself a shout-out if you helped make this happen!!

But there is just one more ask. We need to stop this in the other 28 states. We need to pass the 2 bills that would require the treaty and international health regulation amendments to be ratified by the US Senate, where they will die
 Because 49 US Senators have already made clear they will vote NO!

On the global front Dr Nass was very restrained despite apparent backtracking on many of the most serious concerns.

As detailed by UsForThem:

BRIEFING PAPER FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS AND THE PUBLIC

The IHR Amendments Package and WHO Pandemic Agreement


This briefing paper explains the key changes and persisting issues. In summary:

★ Many of the most egregious proposals in the original IHR amendments package

have been dropped or significantly scaled back, including:

○ Proposals which would have ordained the WHO with powers to issue binding directives to Member States (dropped)

○ Proposals which would have erased reference to “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” (dropped)

○ Proposals which would have allowed the WHO to intervene on the basis of having identified a mere “potential” health emergency (dropped)

○ Provisions which had proposed to expand the scope of the IHR’s to include “all risks with a potential to impact public health” (dropped)

○ Provisions expressly favouring the use of digital health passports (dropped)

○ Proposals which aimed to construct a global censorship and ‘information control’ operation led by the WHO (dropped, though the texts still commit States to enhance their abilities to counter ‘misinformation and

disinformation’)

○ Plans for the WHO to police compliance with all aspects of the IHRs

(scaled back).

The reason for Nass’s caution is suspicion that some or all of these apparent retreats may have been tactical. Due to opaqueness, ongoing draft changes and updates (see below), the visible reality is that come the day of the deadline, many government reps won’t know the current position on the items of concern and won’t know exactly what they are voting for.

9/5/24 The WHO Falsely Claims to Have Published Final Pandemic Treaty Draft in Required Time Before Key Vote

Dr David Bell and Dr Thi Thuy Van Dinh

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently put up a defence of its violation of its own legal requirements by submitting draft amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) for a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) this May. This was in response to various concerns raised in parliaments and civil society. It matters, because in ignoring legal requirements and rushing a vote the WHO is putting global health and economies at risk, as well as acting like a spoilt child, which suggests the organisation is no longer fit for its mandate.

A rush without reason




There is, of course, a reason for the rush, and that’s just it - to rush the delegates and their parliaments out of their capacity to assess and report what is happening.

In order to achieve this confusion the WHO is breaking fundamental rules and lying about it.

The deliberate dishonesty in the tactics of the WHO (or more accurately, their corporate backers) could not be more obvious.
As UsForThem explains:

"Perhaps in response to the various concerns raised, the IHR Secretariat recently updated its Q&A online section with a quite imaginative claim that the WHO has fulfilled the requirements of article 55(2), as below:

In fulfilling the Article 55(2) requirement, the WHO Secretariat circulated all proposals for amendments to the IHR on November 16th 2022, some 17 months before the 77th World Health Assembly, which begins on May 27th 2024, when they are proposed for consideration.

In addition, the IHR Secretariat even claimed that it had exceeded the technical requirements under Art. 55(2) IHR by communicating “all proposed changes to these [308] amendments developed by the WGIHR drafting group, to all 196 States Parties, after each WGIHR meeting”.

However, a factual account of the relevant WHO documents easily demonstrates that these claims are flawed. The amendments presented over 17 months ago, by and large, no longer exist. The amendments reached after each round of negotiations have also been largely modified, replaced or deleted. The current amendments are the result of months of revision, bargaining and rewording to change the meanings at the behest of States Parties. To claim that wording that no longer exists and will not be voted on fulfills the requirements for Member States to review a text before a vote, ignoring the text they will actually be held to, calls into question the seriousness of the entire WGIHR process. It is particularly unfortunate and deeply concerning to see a global body like the WHO acting with such disrespect for the people it is supposed to serve, and perhaps says much about the problems that currently beset global public health."

In short, only the proposals of 17 months ago satisfy the requirement of 4 months scrutiny, as amendments and adjustments - the only things that matter - have rendered the original proposals non-existent. In the run-up to the day, most countries parliaments, media and populace won’t know what is compulsory and what isn’t, and what has survived since they last paid attention, if they did at all.

Even for those countries that were paying attention, the last rounds of pushing and shoving, horse trading and bribes inducements, along with the engineered informational confusion, will probably prevail.

I fear the reality is that nothing short of outright rejection is likely to keep out the WHO :frowning_face:

ED

2 Likes
#2

It’s over, says Meryl Nass. For now.
See below. I hope she’s right
I was going to post a Telegraph piece saying the UK wasn’t going to sign up. Why? Because it wouldn’t commit to sharing 20% of future vaccines!

Interesting that the US, which itself would have trouble getting it to work at state level, was splashing the cash among the small countries (true to the style of UN negotiations). I wonder who these big players are, probably the likes of Blackrock and Vanguard, rather than Pfizer (and Boots the Chemist :slightly_smiling_face: ).

ED

It’s over, for now. The Pandemic Treaty has failed. The IHR amendments have 7 days to reach agreement. We are WINNING!!!

The treaty that was supposed to help the third world was just another power grab. The 100 countries getting paid off by the US to go along with pandemic preparedness were not enough to save the treaty

By Jennifer Rigby

LONDON (Reuters) -Talks to draw up a global pact to help fight future pandemics have ended without a draft agreement, sources close to the process said on Friday.

Negotiators from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 194 member states were hoping to have a final draft agreement by the end of Friday, with a view towards adopting the legally-binding text at the World Health Assembly later this month.

But they stopped negotiating on the text at lunchtime and have moved instead to working out how best to continue work on the treaty - either in the next few weeks, months or even years, one official said.

The aim of the document, alongside a series of updates to existing rules on dealing with pandemics, is to shore up the world’s defences against new pathogens after the COVID-19 pandemic killed millions of people.

But there have been deep disagreements throughout the negotiating process, particularly around equity, and the timeline for reaching an agreement was always ambitious, experts said. The accord, commonly known as a treaty, has also become politicised in some countries.

VACCINE SHARING

Some of the treaty’s most contentious elements, including details around a “pathogen access and benefits system”, have already been pushed back for later discussion, with a deadline two years from now. The system intends to codify sharing of material with pandemic potential, such as new viruses or strains, and ensure that all countries benefit fairly from vaccines, drugs and tests developed as a result.

The existing draft treaty includes a clause asking pharmaceutical manufacturers to reserve 10% of such items to donate to the WHO, and 10% for the agency to buy at affordable prices to distribute in poorer countries during health emergencies.

A report earlier this week in the Britain’s Telegraph newspaper said the UK would not sign a treaty the country says would force it to give away a fifth of its vaccines.

An official involved in the talks said while most countries supported a commitment to fairer vaccine access, a fixed percentage was not finalised.

An existing agreement that governs pandemic influenza also has a clause about selling vaccines at affordable prices or donating them to WHO. It allows for between 5% and 20% for both options, to allow for flexibility in negotiating with manufacturers.

This framework is what would be brought into play should the H5N1 strain of avian flu, which has raised alarm after being identified in cows in the United States as well as among other animals and birds, become easily transmissible between humans.

The WHO currently assesses that threat as low as there has been no evidence of human-to-human spread.

External experts said losing political momentum for the pandemic accord was a risk if there were long delays, particularly in an election year for many countries. But they said it was still worth fighting for the treaty.

“There are proposals on the table that, if they went the distance, could make a difference,” said Michelle Childs, director of policy advocacy at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi).

“Our collective global health and security perhaps would be even more vulnerable if the agreement fails than if the process never began,” said Alexandra Phelan, a global health law expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

(Reporting by Jennifer Rigby; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Alex Richardson)

1 Like
#3

Good news! Ta!

Here’s some more:

Senator Ron Johnson Explains How He Got ALL 49 GOP Senators to Reject WHO Pandemic Agreement

Interview on The Highwire with Dear Old Del (Bigtree) - AIRDATE: May 9, 2024

1 Like
#4

Did the WHO Water Down Its ‘Pandemic Treaty’? Not Really, Experts S

From Childrens Health Defense

They certainly modified the language, trouble is the compulsion is elsewhere in the document, and can still be retrieved.

Article below.
I used their ‘Republish’ option.

ED
UPDATE. I don’t think this is the story I meant to publish, which appeared after Meryl Nass’s tentative declaration of victory. I can’t find that now, but think the gist is the same - as explained by Roguski in the article, the situation is still fluid, with the smoke and mirrors ongoing; but agreement on May 23rd looking unlikely, and a strategic retreat by the WHO - led by Gates and the US - to extend the process pending improverd manoevering, coercion and horse trading.
ED

The latest draft of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “pandemic agreement” no longer states that the document is binding on WHO member states, according to reports circulating widely on blogs and social media.

One report, published on April 22 by independent journalist Peter Imanuelsen, states that with the removal of a key article from the draft treaty, countries “no longer have to obey the WHO.”

But experts who spoke with The Defender said it is too soon to say the WHO backed down. They pointed out that the latest drafts of the proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), still under negotiation by WHO members, contain obligations for nations and curtail freedoms for people globally.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender, “There is no victory,” as the proposed IHR amendments give the WHO’s director-general “unlimited legislative and executive powers to declare a pandemic and the measures which need to be taken” — and strengthen existing powers as specified in the current IHR, ratified in 2005.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender the two proposed instruments will still direct WHO member states to distribute vaccines and drugs and obey demands issued by the organization during a declared “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC).

Writing for Door to Freedom, Nass said the latest revisions to the IHR amendments state that the document is “non-binding” but that other language contradicts this.

“So what if the term ‘non-binding’ is no longer crossed out? The document is still binding on nations due to other language, the requirement to report back to the WHO on how well nations are complying, and the new Compliance and Implementation committee, which will ride herd on nations that do not comply,” Nass wrote.

What’s more, “Nations must ‘adjust’ their domestic legislation to comply 
 though the document claims it has no intention of imposing on national sovereignty,” she added.

Nass said claims that language regarding “misinformation” and “disinformation” was removed from the latest draft of the IHR amendments is also false. She wrote:

“The control of misinformation and disinformation got moved to an Annex where it would be less obvious. However, the control of information is now even more stringent, as ‘surveillance’ and managing misinformation are now considered ‘Core Capacities’ that all nations will have to develop, and on which they will be scored using a monitoring system still to be developed.”

Terhorst said if the WHO ratifies either or both of the two proposed documents in their current iterations, it would attain “legislative and executive powers, autonomous powers,” that are explicitly prohibited by the WHO’s Constitution. According to Terhorst, the constitution limits the WHO’s power to that of an “advisory body.”

Member states will vote on the proposed instruments at the 77th World Health Assembly, scheduled for May 27-June 1 in Geneva, Switzerland.

‘A form of negotiating blackmail’

Independent journalist James Roguski has chronicled the negotiations for both the “pandemic agreement” and the IHR amendments on his Substack. In an April 18 post, he said that negotiations on the proposed “pandemic agreement” have “failed.”

This failure, Roguski said, leaves the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body no choice but to propose that nations sign an unfinished document and agree to delay the details into the “far distant future,” through the passage of a proposed “Pandemic Treaty” resolution.

In a separate Substack post on April 23, Roguski wrote that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is “resorting to a form of negotiating blackmail,” by “attempting to pressure the WHO member nations to adopt and sign an incomplete agreement” at next month’s meeting.”

According to Roguski, the “not-so-subtle threat” is that if member states do not sign the incomplete document, “they will not be able to continue to participate in the subsequent negotiations to work out the details.”

Member states can sign the “pandemic agreement” at WHO headquarters in Geneva from May 28 to June 28, and at United Nations headquarters in New York from July 8, 2024, to July 7, 2025.

Roguski wrote on April 18:

“They have always wanted to reach an empty agreement in order to set up a Framework Convention and a brand new bureaucracy (the Conference of the Parties) [COP] that would be empowered to meet on a yearly basis off into the future, forever.

“They know that they cannot show us the details of what they really want to do. They are proposing an incomplete, watered-down agreement in the hopes that they will be able to make decisions in the future in the hopes that we won’t be paying attention.”

According to Roguski, WHO member states have not agreed on aspects of the “pandemic agreement” that involve One Health, the development of a “Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing System,” financing and financial rules governing the COP.

Yet, the resolution requires WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to immediately implement clauses about topics such as “Preparedness, readiness and resilience,” “Vaccine and therapeutic related compensation and liability during pandemics,” “regulatory strengthening” and a “Coordinating Financial Mechanism.”

IHR Amendments would give WHO director-general ‘lawmaking powers’

The revisions to the proposed IHR amendments have led to a new document that Terhorst said, “appears to be less awful than the earlier draft.” But that’s “deceiving,” she said.

Like Nass, Terhost noted that the latest draft foresees the establishment of an IHR Implementation and Compliance committee, “intended to facilitate and oversee the implementation of and promote compliance with these Regulations.”

“This means that if a PHEIC is declared 
 or a pandemic or pandemic emergency or early action alert, all member states have to answer and obey the orders from the WHO director-general, and their own institutions have to implement the measures requested such as lockdowns, vaccination, quarantine, travel restrictions,” Terhorst said.

As a result, the director-general will have “lawmaking powers” to declare a PHEIC and the measures nations must take in response, Terhorst said.

Writing on his Substack April 22, Roguski listed several “unacceptable” proposals contained in the most recent draft of the IHR amendments, including vaccination requirements, proposals to quarantine travelers, proposals for the implementation of “vaccine passports” and testing requirements as a prerequisite to travel, enhanced surveillance mechanisms, and censorship under the guise of targeting “misinformation.”

Silvia Behrendt, founder and director of the Agency for Global Health Responsibility, based in Austria, told The Defender that aside from these provisions, the proposed IHR amendments also violate Article 55, Paragraph 2 of the existing IHR (2005).

This clause requires the WHO director-general to communicate all proposed changes to the IHR to all member states at least four months before the World Health Assembly. The WHO claims that it fulfilled this requirement when the “WHO Secretariat circulated all proposals for amendments to the IHR on 16 November 2022.”

Behrendt disagreed. “The new draft is, to a very high extent, a new version which we have never seen,” she said. “This proves that the deadline has not been met, because it’s not enough time” for the WHO member states.

“This is also not the final draft,” Behrendt said. “They will have a new [negotiating] session and there will again be new changes to it.” The Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations meets April 22-26.

Behrendt said this is a particularly burdensome process for smaller states, who are faced with dual negotiations regarding the “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments but lack the capacity to keep up with both.

“This is a cascading effect and it’s a very complex situation because they negotiate on the same subject matter. It has never been done in international law,” Behrendt said, noting that the European Union (EU) is part of the negotiations for both proposals as a separate entity, even as its individual member states are also part of the negotiating process.

Terhorst said the EU lacks the authority to participate as a separate party in these negotiations, noting that public health policy in the EU is the sole domain of the states. Behrendt said this is an attempt by the EU to “take the lead” on public health policy.

Terhorst said the EU, a proponent of digital health passports and “digital identity,” is “acquiring more and more power,” and alongside other WHO member states and negotiators, is seeking to rush through the two proposals before this year’s U.S. presidential elections, where two of the three leading candidates oppose the WHO.

Behrendt said the recent bird flu scare is one more reason the WHO is rushing to push through both proposals. “It’s very interesting that it surfaces now,” she said, noting the timing of the outbreak, just before this year’s World Health Assembly.

Other non-state actors, like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are also participants in the negotiations as official WHO “stakeholders.” Behrendt cited the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Traders as one such organization, noting “they have dominated” the negotiating processes for the two WHO proposals.

Global opposition to WHO proposals is growing

Terhorst said global opposition to the two WHO proposals continues to grow. On April 16, the Dutch Parliament passed a motion asking the country’s government to postpone its vote on the IHR amendments at next month’s World Health Assembly, because the amendments were not submitted at least four months before the assembly.

The Dutch government is not bound by the motion, Terhorst said, but she noted the broad support the motion enjoyed in Parliament. “Even parties who were very much in favor of all the COVID-19 measures, they thought that this was just not legal.”

Terhorst also noted that the Dutch government previously submitted a reservation — a legal request for more time to review — against the 2022 IHR amendments, but has not made the formal reservation letter public, claiming the letter is “diplomatic information.”

“Why is it a diplomatic relations issue? It’s a legal issue and the Dutch Parliament should be able to verify that this letter has been sent,” Terhorst said, adding that the Dutch Parliament never ratified the IHR (2005), perhaps because it is unconstitutional.

Last week, tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Japan to oppose the two proposals. And last month, the Louisiana Senate voted unanimously to ban WHO involvement in the state’s health policy, while lawmakers in Uganda also opposed the two proposals.

On May 2, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Global Affairs will host a listening session “to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help [it] inform and prepare for U.S. Government engagement at the World Health Assembly.”

The session is open to the public, but those interested must RSVP by April 26.

1 Like
#5

I just came across this, which is apparently part 4 in a series, link below, from Jon Rappoport:

RED ALERT: WHO Pandemic “Treaty” is now an “Agreement”

This makes all the difference in the world! We’ve been fooled

Jon Rappoport

May 13, 2024

I’ll give you the bottom line. A TREATY needs the signature of the US President plus a 2/3 vote of approval in the Senate.

An AGREEMENT only needs the President’s signature, and America is committed to go along with the document.

I’ve been communicating with a media person at the World Health Organization (WHO). It took several exchanges to clarify what’s going on here.

What we’ve been told is the WHO Pandemic Treaty is actually labeled an Agreement.

This is dire.

When Biden signs it, American sovereignty is suddenly placed under the WHO.

The WHO can declare a global health emergency whenever they want to, for any reason, and all the rules and restrictions they lay down can be invoked. Here in America.

For instance, lockdowns, mandated vaccines.

America is suddenly a colony of the World Health Organization.

No date has been set for WHO submitting the Agreement to the US and other countries, but it could be soon.

A sword is hanging over our heads.

We need massive refusal, despite Biden imminently signing our sovereignty away.

We need Senators rebelling in large numbers.

We need state governors pledging to ignore all WHO dictates.

We need the American people refusing to go along with the WHO.

Here is the document the WHO media person sent me, showing that this so-called Treaty is actually an Agreement.

Here is the article I published recently that goes into depth on Treaty vs. Agreement. It explains that these international agreements are illegitimate and should never be honored. They’re unconstitutional, and have always been a con and hustle designed to inflate the power of the President and the Executive Branch.

Get the word out, far and wide.

We’re being taken for a ride.

A bad nightmare ride.

P.S. Having read the WHO document I linked to above, my impression is this: the WHO Agreement is designed for “collective unity” among member nations.

It’s similar to the early stages of the European Union, whose message was, “We’re all in this together.” But gradually, the consensus approach vanished, and the EU emerged as a super-government.

In this case, the WHO wants “input” on pandemic measures from all member nations. The WHO even insists that the sovereignty of each nation will never be disturbed and encroached upon by the Pandemic Agreement.

BUT the goal is making the WHO the leader of the pack.

The WHO will say it’s acting and running the show on behalf of its members, but that façade will vanish in due time.

The WHO will turn into a global health government, issuing orders and driving tyranny


In the same way that US health agencies—the FDA, the CDC, the EPA—design sets of regulations that impose de facto laws no legislators have ever voted on.

WATCH OUT.

We’re frogs in the pot, and the heat is on.

– Jon Rappoport

(This article is Part-4 in a series. For Part-3, go here.)

Subscribe to Jon Rappoport

Thousands of paid subscribers

The Hottest Takes on Culture and Health Politics

2 Likes
#6

Thanks for this Rich. I’m aware this is an issue that was being tried on in the US, but I thought the Senators were onto it.
One thing I’ve not understood is; if it’s just an agreement, how would it bind governments? (Though willing govts like the UK could pretend to be bound by it)
Also, I presume that this distinction would not wash in most other countries.

Confusion reigns. My biggest fear is the smoke will not clear until May 23rd and only then will governments and parliamentarians get to find out what has been agreed.

1 Like
#7

I don’t get that either. Are we missing something?

Anyway, here’s Eddie Hobbs. Up the Irish!

The Killarney Declaration: Ireland’s Stand Against the WHO Treaty - Eddie Hobbs

1 Like
#8

The WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness agenda has FAILED. YES, NOW! I explain why. Don’t be fooled.

WE WON! YOU DID IT! PEOPLES’ POWER WORKED TO EDUCATE OUR SISTERS, BROTHERS AND LAWMAKERS AND THE ROACHES COULD NOT PULL OFF THE DEAL

Meryl Nass

May 27, 2024

No, you don’t have to wait until the fat lady sings. Its OVER!!!

The entire pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through lies and stealth. Globalists created legal documents that are replete with euphemisms and flowery language, always disguised to hide the documents’ true intentions. But we saw through them and didn’t let them get away with it!

And that is what they are doing today, attempting to make people think they can still pull it together. They don’t want you to savor this sweet victory.

But they are not stopping me from pulling out the corks and dancing. The treaty cannot be resurrected from the ashes. It is not a Phoenix, despite what some want you to think. This was the foundational agreement for the Treaty:

[A]s negotiators are fond of stressing: “nothing is decided until everything is decided.” I heard this over and over and over as I watched the proceedings and read about the negotiations. Yet the phrase is hard to find today wrt the WHO. I suspect the thought police have scrubbed it from the search engines.

So NOTHING in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week. The treaty is done. People now understand what it was about, what was in it, and how it was the first step to a One World Government. They have said NO to all that.

What about the IHR amendments? While it is true that some articles in the amendments had the agreement of negotiators, and could be voted on, the agreed-upon items were not the dangerous ones. They tended to be the flowery language ones, not the meaningful ones. With a single exception: interestingly, the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation, i.e., they were fine with censorship and propaganda.

This, however, should not surprise us, since nearly all our governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us. So while this provision is odious, it really doesn’t change anything. Nations are trying to legalize surveillance and censorship, using linguistic tricks like calling truth “hate speech.” The US government hopes to overturn the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) in the Supreme Court, where Missouri v Biden is headed. This is another battle we need to win. Soon, I hope—it is a major one, because control of information is the absolutely essential piece the globalists must hang onto in order to succeed.

Here, you can read them for yourself and see what was agreed and what was not agreed.

Don’t be fooled. WE WON THE FIRST ROUND IN THE WAR OF DEMOCRACY VERSUS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. IT’S TIME TO CELEBRATE!!!

2 Likes
#9

Reuters today: Only Mr. Gostin is hopeful about the PPPR agenda this week

Everyone else is subdued

Meryl Nass

May 27, 2024

https://www.reuters.com/world/who-chief-tedros-confident-eventual-pandemic-treaty-deal-2024-05-27/

GENEVA, May 27 (Reuters) - The head of the World Health Organization on Monday voiced confidence that countries would one day reach a deal on a pandemic accord after failing to produce an agreement last week, although health officials warned it could take years.

Health officials have voiced frustration with the negotiations that have been dogged by lengthy discussions past midnight, last-minute shifts in position and growing criticism from right-wing commentators that the treaty would undermine sovereignty, which the WHO strongly denies.

In a symbol of the resistance, a truck with a sign reading “NO to the Pandemic Treaty. STOP the UN Power Grab” was seen near the U.N. headquarters in Geneva where the talks are taking place .

Ministers from among the WHO’s 194 member states are seeking to wrap up more than two years of negotiations on new rules for responding to pandemics during the May 27-June 1 World Health Assembly after COVID-19 killed millions.

Negotiators failed to produce a draft deal on Friday for formal approval by the assembly this week.

A senior U.S. administration official said Washington remained committed to the process but estimated another 1-2 years of talks . “There’s a lot of frustration,” she said. A health diplomat said reforms to the process were being considered as well as an extension of between 5-24 months.

Negotiations are still ongoing for an update to existing health rules on outbreaks and negotiators say that a deal is close, including on a new tiered system of alerts following criticism the WHO was too slow to declare a COVID emergency.

Lawrence Gostin , a professor at Georgetown Law in Washington D.C. involved in the negotiations, said the outcome was a “shameful abdication of political leadership” but voiced confidence the reforms would pass this week.

“They have enormous potential value for making the world safer and more equitable,” he told Reuters.

I sent bumper stickers to Geneva and hopefully we will start seeing them on vehicles as well!

REUTERS ARTICLE BELOW FROM LINK ABOVE:

Sounds to me like the Agreement (or Treaty or whatever the hell this thing really is!) is dead in the water. Or am I being over optimistic?

WHO chief Tedros ‘confident’ of eventual pandemic treaty deal

By Emma Farge and Gabrielle TĂ©trault-Farber

May 27, 20246:31 PM GMT+1Updated 2 days ago

  • Summary

  • Negotiations set to be extended

  • Health officials voice frustration

  • WHO annual assembly lasts until June 1

GENEVA, May 27 (Reuters) - The head of the World Health Organization on Monday voiced confidence that countries would one day reach a deal on a pandemic accord after failing to produce an agreement last week, although health officials warned it could take years.

Health officials have voiced frustration with the negotiations that have been dogged by lengthy discussions past midnight, last-minute shifts in position and growing criticism from right-wing commentators that the treaty would undermine sovereignty, which the WHO strongly denies.

In a symbol of the resistance, a truck with a sign reading “NO to the Pandemic Treaty. STOP the UN Power Grab” was seen near the U.N. headquarters in Geneva where the talks are taking place.

Ministers from among the WHO’s 194 member states are seeking to wrap up more than two years of negotiations on new rules for responding to pandemics during the May 27-June 1 World Health Assembly after COVID-19 killed millions.

Negotiators failed to produce a draft deal on Friday for formal approval by the assembly this week.

Item 1 of 4 Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attends the World Health Assembly at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, May 27, 2024. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

[1/4] Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attends the World Health Assembly at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, May 27, 2024. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse Purchase Licensing Rights

, opens new tab

“Of course, we all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly, and cross the finish line,” Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in his opening address.

“I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way. I know that there remains among you a common will to get this done.”

A senior U.S. administration official said Washington remained committed to the process but estimated another 1-2 years of talks. “There’s a lot of frustration,” she said. A health diplomat said reforms to the process were being considered as well as an extension of between 5-24 months.

Negotiations are still ongoing for an update to existing health rules on outbreaks and negotiators say that a deal is close, including on a new tiered system of alerts following criticism the WHO was too slow to declare a COVID emergency.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown Law in Washington D.C. involved in the negotiations, said the outcome was a “shameful abdication of political leadership” but voiced confidence the reforms would pass this week.

“They have enormous potential value for making the world safer and more equitable,” he told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/world/who-chief-tedros-confident-eventual-pandemic-treaty-deal-2024-05-27/

#10

Hi folks,

For the USA I seem to recall someone saying that a Treaty needs to be passed by a 2/3rds majority in the US congress whereas an agreement can just be signed off by the President without the necessity to involve anyone else.

cheers

#11

Some more good news!

The World Health Assembly meeting has failed to achieve a package of amendments to the IHR

Meryl Nass

Jun 01, 2024

3 Likes
#12

Meryl Nass takes stock of the damage to the s***(*) (save? screw?) the world project.
It’s quite a list. Have a drink, an ice cream, double cake or read something terrible that you like, twice.

As she explains, the only thing of note that did pass was the commitment to do with Misinformation and Disinformation - and countries were already doing that anyway, certainly in the West at least.

That commitment is, essentially, to use as much Misinformation and Disinformation for the phoney Biosecurity agenda as they can get away with, while accusing any truth-tellers of doing the very same.

Over to Meryl.

Some people worry that the IHR amendments passed. DON’T. This list of the bullets we just dodged should make the result clear. CELEBRATE!

We did it. People power beat the $ and the connections of the globalist cabal. The IHRs that passed were merely a face-saving measure.

Meryl Nass
Jun 1 \ 40x40

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

One bad thing remained in the IHR, and that was “addressing” misinformation and disinformation, bt the IHR did not tell nations how to address it.

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, move meds from country to country, 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

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

1 Like
#13

If Meryl Nass is right (and I have no reason to believe that she isn’t), then this is great news but for me it should be the battle is won but the war is not yet over. It seems to me that we need a national ‘health organisation’ that has no, zero, zilch funding from industry. It should be staffed by professionals who have no, zero, zilch conflicts of interest and then we can get rid of the World Hoax Organisation.

With Rich or Sneer as PM’s, fat chance.

2 Likes
#14

Amen to that.

1 Like
#15

From Andrew Bridgen’s telegram;

Behind closed doors and out of sight the World Health Organisation has agreed a package of sweeping changes to the International Health Regulations in direct violation of its own charter. This paves the way to a pandemic agreement that will see British public health policy made by unelected bureaucrats in Geneva. Only independent MPs are free to challenge this plan in Parliament.

1000007973
10000079731064×278 43 KB

2 Likes
#16

Thanks LY.

Also in Andrew Bridgen’s telegram: a report on a new paper featuring the effect of Midazolam on UK excess death calculations
The paper is by lone author Wilson Sy, a new name for me.

On this podcast with Dean Mackin he discusses the UK paper, in which he seems to show the driver of excess deaths in the UK was Midazolam.

The precursor to this UK paper is another, much shorter paper on excess deaths in Australia. Australian data is simpler, he explains, because they didn’t have much Covid in 2020 and its attendant data-confounding inaccuracies (so excess deaths there really started in 2021); also they didn’t use Midazolam (or Remdesivir as in the US) to confuse the causes of death.
The Australia paper (immediately below) is simpler and I’d recommend reading this first to get tuned in to Sy’s methods and presentation style

Unit, Investment Analytics Research, Sydney, Australia. *
Corresponding Author Dr Wilson Sy
Submitted: 15 Sep 2023; Accepted: 29 Sep 2023; Published: 20 Oct 2023
Early Indication of Long-Term Impact of COVID Injections

The UK paper is here.

Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19
Pandemic
Wilson Sy*
Director, Investment Analytics Research, Australia.

This totalhealth article reports on the UK paper.

The key to both papers is the time lag of deaths following Midazolam (one month) and the vaccines, which in the Australia data seems to clearly fall at five months. The UK data, though less crisp-looking, supports the five-month shift, which could turn out to the most significant revelation in world terms.

ED

UK pandemic deaths caused by euthanasia drug Midazolam, new research paper claims

An extremely well-cited Australian paper, published by the open-access journal Medical and Clinical Research claims that the pandemic in the UK from 2020-2022 was caused not by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but by euthanasia of elderly patients in hospitals and care homes using the sedative Midazolam, ostensibly to clear beds in a clogged NHS in anticipation of a COVID-19 epidemic that never materialised.

Rights ‘were violated’

The paper demonstrates high correlation between the administration of Midazolam, a sedative that is indicated for end-of-life treatment, and the spike in excess deaths in April 2020. The paper notes that various bodies, including Amnesty International, the Care Quality Commission, and the UK parliament, have lamented the blanket application of ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) and ‘Do not attempt resuscitation’ (DNAR) orders by hospitals and care homes in the early months of the reported pandemic. Amnesty is quoted as saying that patients’ human rights ‘notably their right to life, their right to health, and their right to non-discrimination’ were violated.

Widespread policy of non-voluntary euthanasia

Euthanasia remains illegal in the UK, but guidelines published by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), ‘following WHO (World Health Organisation) COVID-19 guidance’ at the start of the alleged pandemic appear to have opened the doors to a widespread policy of non-voluntary euthanasia of elderly and vulnerable patients, without consultation of themselves or their families, and with an apparent bias towards the non-vaccinated.

The paper reports that the COVID-19 injection itself has been found to be the cause of Australian deaths. However, in the UK, the influence of Midazolam makes it impossible to demonstrate the mortality or non-mortality of the RNA vaccine. However, the virus itself appears to have been ‘largely absent’ in the UK for the period in question. The PCR test, which ‘does not detect presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus’, and therefore gives meaningless results has been responsible for flawed data.

a graph demonstrating the correlation between Midezolam use and excess deaths

The ’anomaly’ of April 2020

The highest number of deaths in the UK during the period defined by the reported event of a COVID-19 pandemic occurred during April 2020. At this time excess deaths reached 100% of baseline, with 43,796 excess deaths, the most affected region being London. This sudden spike in deaths was used as a justification for the declaration of emergency and the imposition of authoritarian policies such as masking and lockdown. However, at the same time the UK Health Service Agency declared that COVID-19 was ‘no longer considered to be an HCID [high consequence infectious disease] in the UK.’ However, the use of Midazolam was simultaneously spiking, with a correlation of 91% between the increase in Midazolam prescription and the increase of reported deaths, allowing for a lag of one month, as medication will not always kill immediately, neither are deaths always immediately reported.

The lethality of Midazolam

Midazolam, used orally, is not usually lethal to healthy people, however intravenously administered high-dose Midazolam given to elderly people with comorbidities, including the terminally ill, can be fatal. According to the US National Library of Medicine, ‘Midazolam injection may cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death.’ As the paper notes, Midazolam is also used in US executions.

Conclusions

The paper has a number of conclusions, including that the pandemic in the UK was ‘iatrogenic’, i.e. that it was medicine-induced, that the April 2020 spike was not caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that Midazolam injections were highly correlated with UK excess deaths throughout the pandemic. Vaccines were unlikely to have been beneficial, if not actually harmful.

The situation in the UK throws doubt on worldwide investigations of COVID-19 epidemiology, ‘because their assumptions are generally false due to the significant presence of confounding factors in some countries, such as the UK.’

View all news