Tag: who

Globalists gather in Geneva to plan new pandemic treaty

We just landed in Geneva, Switzerland, and are reporting to you from outside the United Nations’ office here. We’ve come here because this is where an international body is attempting to rewrite Canadian law — let me explain.

The World Health Organization is a part of the United Nations. It’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, effectively ordered the world to lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Theresa Tam, Canada’s public health officer, was part of the WHO’s committees that helped throw the world into that lockdown chaos.

Well, Theresa Tam is back. She’s here with people from around the world — none of them elected — to pass a pandemic treaty. It’s like the COVID-19 pandemic was a test drive; some things they got wrong, some things they got right. They want to codify this in a treaty so that when the next one comes — and they say there will be a next one — they can snap in a global response.

And that response is drafted here at the United Nations, not back home in Ottawa or London or Canberra or Washington.

Keep reading

WHO’s Pandemic Treaty is dead and the amended IHR has been all but neutralised

On Friday, as the International Negotiating Body were admitting that they were unable to reach an agreement on the text of the Pandemic Treaty, corporate media were trying to salvage whatever credibility the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) pandemic plans had left, if any.

Writing for The New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli’s article ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous, according to Dr. Mery Nass.

‘Countries Fail to Agree on Treaty to Prepare the World for the Next Pandemic’, The New York Times headed its article.  Followed by the lede: “Negotiators plan to ask for more time. Among the sticking points are equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”

WHO was hoping to present two pandemic instruments to the 77th World Health Assembly (“WHA77”) for adoption.  One is the Pandemic Treaty, also referred to as the Pandemic Accord, and the other is the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).

“Negotiators had hoped to adopt the treaty this week,” The New York Times noted, “But cancelled meetings and fractious debates – sometimes over a single word – stalled agreement on key sections, including equitable access to vaccines.”

But regarding the IHR amendments, The New York Times only made one small mention: “The countries are also working on bolstering the WHO’s International Health Regulations, which were last revised in 2005 and set detailed rules for countries to follow in the event of an outbreak that may breach borders.”

The New York Times followed the corporate media line that we’ve been witnessing of late, fear-mongering about a bird flu outbreak.  The author of the article, Apoorva Mandavilli, also threw in mpox (formerly called monkeypox) and smallpox for good measure. The “fear” of both had made a comeback in the press during the first half of 2022 before being stomped out fairly quickly by pesky “conspiracy theorists” but it seems they could be resurrected again.

Keep reading

Corporate media is ramping up the fear about bird flu ahead of the vote on WHO’s pandemic plans

Health officials are issuing very ominous warnings about the potential for an H5N1 (bird flu or avian influenza) pandemic among humans at the same time that the WHO is preparing for a vote on the global pandemic treaty at the 77th World Health Assembly at the end of this month. 

The global pandemic treaty will give the World Health Organisation far more authority than it had during the last pandemic, and a lot of people are deeply concerned about how that power will be used during the next major health crisis. 

As you will see below, two more human cases of the bird flu have just been confirmed.  If the bird flu mutates into a form that can spread easily from human to human, that will create an enormous amount of fear, and the death toll could potentially be catastrophic.  In such an environment, what sort of extreme measures would the World Health Organisation decide to institute?

In recent weeks, negotiators have been feverishly working to finalise the global pandemic treaty.  The following comes directly from the official WHO website:

Governments of the world today agreed to continue working on a proposed pandemic agreement, and to further refine the draft, ahead of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly that starts 27 May 2024.

Governments meeting at the World Health Organisation headquarters in Geneva agreed to resume hybrid and in-person discussions over coming weeks to advance work on critical issues, including around a proposed new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics.Governments agree to continue their steady progress on proposed pandemic agreement ahead of the World Health Assembly, WHO, 10 May 2024

Here in the United States, the corporate media has been strangely quiet about this treaty, but it is a really big deal.

Keep reading

W.H.O. Seeks $7 Billion After Latest Pandemic Treaty Draft Collapses

The World Health Organization (W.H.O.) on Sunday launched a new financing mechanism seeking $7 billion in donations it claims can be quickly deployed without strings attached.

Fresh staffing hires for the Geneva, Switzerland-based organization are at the top of the to-do list once funds are secured, adding to the 8,000-plus already on the payroll.

The call for funding contributions came as the W.H.O. begins its annual meeting on Monday with government ministers and health bureaucrats hoping to reinforce global preparedness for the next pandemic in the devastating wake of coronavirus, AP reports.

It follows the W.H.O.’s comprehensive failure to secure a global treaty on future pandemic responses after two years of closed-door meetings, as Breitbart News reported.

Keep reading

A World State Through the Back Door?

What is going on with the World Health Organisation? In December 2021 it began to talk about a global pandemic treaty. And now an International Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response will be presented to the 77th World Health Assembly between May 27th and June 1st: that is, next week. In the Daily Sceptic David Bell has done good work in going through the articles of the draft treaty, and also noting that we should read the amendments to the International Health Regulations too. But I want to ask a broader question. Is this a world state through the back door?

No one spoke about a world state much — except dismissively — until the early 20th century. H.G. Wells was fond of the idea. It was a modish subject at around the time of the formation of the League of Nations and again around the time of the formation of the United Nations, though, interestingly, it was usually dismissed. In the last 30 years the question of a world state has returned, though the answer is usually still negative.

However, one of the fundamental laws of politics is, and has been ever since Thucydides — or Augustus — that a thing can be one thing and yet can be called another thing. Politics is, as everyone has known since before Socrates, a rhetorical art: and the art of rhetoric involves all manner of minimisations, exaggerations, substitutions, reversals, redescriptions.

So what has happened in the last 30 years is not that we have become enthusiasts for something called a world state, but that we have become enthusiasts for something that we by and large do not want to call a world state while hoping — consciously, unconsciously — that it will be a world state.

Consciously: here I refer to the hypocrites, who want a world state but know they should not say so.

Keep reading

By month’s end, WHO seeks to pass Orwellian pandemic treaty to implement algorithmic surveillance and control systems worldwide

The World Health Organization (WHO) body of experts are set to convene in Geneva, Switzerland, at their 77th World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1, 2024. At the assembly, WHO’s member countries will cast their votes on the final version of the agency’s “pandemic agreement.”

This agreement will give the beleaguered agency more power over sovereign nations, including the power to order targeted lockdowns and mitigation measures. The agreement will allow a global body of experts to use surveillance tools and implement broader mandates for PCR testing, masks, so-called vaccines and other countermeasures. Right now WHO is developing a standardized algorithm to quantify airborne transmission risk to dictate public policies on human interactions.

WHO’s psychotic ARIA tool doubles down on germaphobia, analyzes aerosols and micromanages human activity

WHO is currently collaborating with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to develop an online tool [PDF] that will evaluate and predict risks associated with future airborne virus transmission across various public and private settings. This surveillance tool, named ARIA, will model the hypothetical spread of airborne pathogens in indoor settings, so WHO can craft precise directives on mitigation measures for business owners, households, healthcare centers and others indoor venues.

According to WHO, ARIA was developed by “a global group of experts” who conducted a “comprehensive review of the scientific literature.” Again and again, we are told to “trust the experts” – even though WHO’s guidance has caused significant damage to families, economies and livelihoods worldwide.

Keep reading

A call for people worldwide to stand with Japan against WHO’s public health dictatorship

Last month, tens of thousands of citizens across Japan came together in a series of pandemic rallies. The protests centred on the widespread opposition to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) Pandemic Treaty, with escalating concerns over “infectious disease” and “public health” becoming potent tools for an unprecedented push towards what is perceived by many as a totalitarian surveillance society.

Eminent speakers, including Professor Masayasu Inoue and modern history researcher Chikatsu Hayashi, provided compelling pre-demonstration speeches that laid bare the concerning dynamics between global health authorities and pharmaceutical agendas.

A month later, on Monday, a press conference was broadcast on Twitter.  Below is a video clip from the press conference where Hayashi launched ‘The National Movement to Save Lives from the WHO’, explained the motivations behind the Movement and announced a protest that will take place on the first day of WHO’s 77th World Health Assembly.

Keep reading

The WHO’s Proposed Pandemic Agreements Worsen Public Health

Much has been written on the current proposals putting the World Health Organization (WHO) front and center of future pandemic responses. With billions of dollars in careers, salaries, and research funding on the table, it is difficult for many to be objective. However, there are fundamentals here that everyone with public health training should agree upon. Most others, if they take time to consider, would also agree. Including, when divorced from party politicking and soundbites, most politicians. 

So here, from an orthodox public health standpoint, are some problems with the proposals on pandemics to be voted on at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month.

Unfounded Messaging on Urgency

The Pandemic Agreement (treaty) and IHR amendments have been promoted based on claims of a rapidly increasing risk of pandemics. In fact, they pose an ‘existential threat’ (i.e. one that may end our existence) according to the G20’s High Level Independent Panel in 2022. However, the increase in reported natural outbreaks on which the WHO, the World Bank, G20, and others based these claims is shown to be unfounded in a recent analysis from the UK’s University of Leeds. The main database on which most outbreak analyses rely, the GIDEON database, shows a reduction in natural outbreaks and resultant mortality over the past 10 to 15 years, with the prior increase between 1960 and 2000 fully consistent with the development of the technologies necessary to detect and record such outbreaks; PCR, antigen and serology tests, and genetic sequencing.

The WHO does not refute this but simply ignores it. Nipah viruses, for example, only ‘emerged’ in the late 1990s when we found ways to actually detect them. Now we can readily distinguish new variants of coronavirus to promote uptake of pharmaceuticals. The risk does not change by detecting them; we just change the ability to notice them. We also have the ability to modify viruses to make them worse – this is a relatively new problem. But do we really want an organization influenced by China, with North Korea on its executive board (insert your favorite geopolitical rivals), to manage a future bioweapons emergency?

Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century. Diseases that the WHO uses to suggest an increase in outbreaks over the past 20 years, including cholera, plague, yellow fever, and influenza variants were orders of magnitude worse in past centuries.

This all makes it doubly confusing that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements in order to push through a vote without Member States having time to properly review implications of the proposals. The urgency must be for reasons other than public health need. Others can speculate why, but we are all human and all have egos to protect, even when preparing legally binding international agreements.

Keep reading

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

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

For over 18 months, negotiations have been underway at the WHO on two documents intended to change the way pandemics and threats of pandemics are managed, centralising coordination and decision-making with the WHO. As of early May,  the amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new Pandemic Agreement are still being negotiated at the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) respectively. Despite the WHO being shown to have grossly misrepresented its evidence on the frequency of natural outbreaks and pandemic risk, which have been declining over the past one to two decades, these are proceeding with unusual urgency.

With the COVID-19 outbreak shown to probably result from unnatural means (gain of function research) and a WHO review of the effectiveness of the novel and highly disruptive response not due until 2030, national negotiating teams and the WHO are nonetheless continuing with a paradigm of mass surveillance followed by mass vaccination with vaccines that will not undergo normal clinical trials.

This is clearly inappropriate from a public health standpoint but, perhaps in light of this, is all the stranger in that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements to go forward with a vote on these in just three weeks time. The WHO still plans for its member states to vote on them in the provisional agenda of the 77th WHA without reference documents.

Keep reading

WHO is NOT backing down on its pandemic plans; there is no “major victory for freedom”

Much has been made of the draft of the International Health Regulations released last week.  Although some changes have been made and some wording moved around, the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) plans are the same as they were before.

This week, from 22 and 26 April, the 8th meeting of WHO’s Working Group on the International Health Regulations (2005) (“WGIHR”) is convening. The WGIHR’s task has been to incorporate 300+ proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).

Please note that there are two instruments that WHO is attempting to have ratified at the next World Health Assembly taking place from 27 May to 1 June 2024: the IHR amendments; and, the Pandemic Treaty, also referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).  Both instruments are intended to achieve the same aim.  The Globalists require only one of them to be adopted next month to achieve their aims.

Although there have been several drafts of the proposed Pandemic Treaty, there has been little official information released regarding the IHR amendments.  The proposed 300+ amendments to the IHR were released in February 2023 and, a year later, an unofficial draft of the amended IHR was leaked, in February 2024.

Last week, on 17 April, the WGIHR released another draft of the proposed amended IHR labelled ‘Proposed Bureau’s text for Eighth WGIHR Meeting, 22–26 April 2024’.

With the release of this draft, it appears as if WHO has taken out some of the more controversial provisions.  While some have claimed WHO is “backing down” and this is a “major victory for freedom,” they may have been too hasty.

Keep reading