5 Filters

WHO Pandemic treaty deadline update

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:


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


○ 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:


1 Like

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: ).


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.


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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


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

1 Like

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