| | | | |

~15 nations have made their position on the WHO sovereignty grab, misleadingly spun as an “equity” effort, publicly known before the WHA meeting commences

Share this article

The negotiations have been controlled by globalists, not nations, from day one. How many other countries are entirely fed up with the World Stealth Organization’s tricks?

Eleven nations informed the UN General Assembly they were not going along with the UN’s support for the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Agenda last September. In alphabetical order:

  1. Belarus
  2. Bolivia
  3. Cuba
  4. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
  5. Eritrea
  6. Islamic Republic of Iran
  7. Nicaragua
  8. Russian Federation
  9. Syrian Arab Republic
  10. Venezuela
  11. Zimbabwe

The Netherlands’ government has been instructed to delay the WHO votes or vote No by the lower house of Parliament.

Slovakia said it will not sign current drafts of both documents.

Croatia’s new majority party is against the WHO’s pandemic preparedness plan

Italy’s Senator Borghi said Italy will vote No on the treaty and furthermore that there are 10 more months in which to reject the IHR Amendments.

It is very unusual to have this level of disagreement made public even before the start of the World Health Assembly meeting. And with “hybrid negotiations” aka backroom horse-trading, leading right up to the meeting, nobody will have time to consider the treaties before they are due to be voted on. It has been a corrupt process from start to finish. It could only succeed with stealth (no one knowing what is really in the treaties) and bribes.

Now that the US has announced that 100 countries are being paid off to develop their pandemic preparedness agenda, will the bribes be enough to get these treaties across the finish line? Will the unbribed be miffed? How much will it cost the US taxpayer for the world’s nations to agree to dictatorial control of pandemics and health information going forward?

Similar Posts

  • What is One Health and Why is it a Problem?

    Share this article

    “One Health” was conceived 20 years ago as the idea that human health and animal health are intertwined, since some diseases are transmitted from animals to humans. These diseases would perhaps be better managed with specialists in animal and human health working together. Subsequently the WHO, the US government and…

  • The “One Health” Agenda

    Share this article

    In today’s installment, we will examine the One Health agenda and how it threatens to destroy both food freedom and medical freedom. 
    The term “One Health” was coined after the first SARS outbreak in the early 2000s to reflect the danger of new diseases emerging from human-animal contact. It refers to the idea of public health being not just about your health but also about animal and “planetary” health. It is framed in language designed to sound appealing and holistic.

  • The Sustainable Development Goals

    Share this article

    The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the basis of Agenda 2030, a collection of seventeen interlinked objectives, adopted as a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2015.  They are described as a “shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.”[1]  The UN Secretary-General’s intention…

  • Recently circulated: new draft of amendments to the IHR

    Share this article

    Share this article The 300+ amendments proposed last year have been whittled down to something readable, yet still…