| | | | |

~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 “Gain of Function’ research?

    Share this article

    ‘Gain of Function’ (GOF) research uses benign-sounding terminology to confuse people who are unfamiliar with the subject. It used to be called ‘biodefense,’ ‘biological warfare’ and ‘germ warfare’ research in past decades. The term refers to making existing microorganisms (viruses, fungi and bacteria) more dangerous, by giving them one or more new…

  • Un-Farming the Farmers: Restoring Soil, Food, and Environment

    Share this article

    Share this article Mark Fulford Drawing parallels between corporate farming and mining, Mark Fulford explains how large-scale industrial…

  • We’re in the Middle of a Global Coup — Here’s How We Stop It

    Share this article

    In this interview board-certified internist and biological warfare epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass discusses the dangers posed by the World Health Organization’s upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments. She also wrote about this in a recent article titled “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics.”…

  • Catherine Austin Fitts Explains the Cabal’s Land and Real Estate Stealing Tactics

    Share this article

    Catherine Austin Fitts is a legend that needs no introduction. She has an incredible amount of knowledge and experience, both as an investment banker and working in government, and then being prosecuted by the government (former Assistant Secy of Housing) for trying to uncover and fight corruption. She is currently the publisher of the Solari Report.