The first part of this series of articles investigating the WHO power grab, which you can read here, focused on proposed amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) that, if adopted in May 2024, present a serious threat to national and individual sovereignty. Since the publication of that article, there has been a development relating to the proposed, and separate, ‘WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response’ known as ‘WHO CA+’ with the publication of a new WHO CA+ Bureau Draft on June 2. This supersedes the previous ‘Pandemic Treaty’ draft referenced in Part 1.
The Bureau Draft of the WHO CA+ ‘Pandemic Treaty’ begins with the premise that a new, legally binding, instrument is required ‘in recognition of the catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic’.
The document is littered with references to the WHO One Health policy and ideology published in October 2022, which seeks to centralise and bring all public health and related decisions and policies under WHO auspices in a Global Health Security Agenda that can only be described as fascistic in nature and based on the fallacious argument that we face many global threats which require global solutions. Combined with articles in the Bureau Draft which propose aggressively to monitor and censor dissent (Article 18), this should trigger alarm bells that health is being hijacked by politics to allow the elites to control every area of our lives in a completely undemocratic way.
One Health is defined by the WHO as ‘an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognises the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent’. Article 5 of the draft is entitled ‘Strengthening Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness through a One Health Approach’ and would require countries to take a ‘One Health Approach’ in relation to pandemics, through the development and implementation of national One Health plans and surveillance mechanisms and by agreeing to ‘identify and integrate into relevant pandemic prevention and preparedness plans interventions that address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land-use change, wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance’.
In the 43-page Bureau Draft, it is notable that there is very little content that relates to promoting health or providing healthcare. Instead, it appears to be primarily a legal instrument designed to set up a global laboratory and testing infrastructure (the WHO Global Pandemic-Related Product Network/Supply Chain Network – Article 13A) for genomic sequencing and surveillance for ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’. This would enable the creation of a pandemic industry to profit from public health emergencies, through the flow of taxpayers’ money into the system, from legal obligations on nations created by the treaty (Article 19). It is described by the US researcher James Roguski, in this recent interview, as a ‘Framework Convention and financial prospectus’ forming ‘a Venture Capital plan to install a new bureaucracy within the WHO to manage and operate essentially a new industry that is fascist in nature, through the creations of a partnership between Government, private corporations and Foundations and NGOs’.
Central to the draft treaty (Article 20) is the proposal to establish a new independent bureaucracy called the Conference of the Parties (COP), comprised of representatives from nation states as well as non-voting observers from NGOs and other stakeholders. The COP would operate with an Implementation and Compliance Committee, a Panel of Experts, a Pandemic-Related Products Committee and a Benefit-Sharing Expert Committee and would oversee and promote compliance by member states, promote and facilitate the mobilisation of the financial resources required, and could introduce new protocols into the WHO Pandemic Treaty, requiring only a two-thirds majority vote to do this.
Other proposals of concern include the requirement on member states to set up a universal health and preparedness review system to ‘promote collective global action and accountability for preparedness by bringing them together with stakeholders at the national, regional and global levels to comprehensively review their national health emergency preparedness capacities.’ (Article 8C) and a requirement to participate in multi-country or regional tabletop exercises every five years (Article 8).
The draft treaty makes clear that the WHO CA+ would be applicable at all times, not just during a pandemic (Article 2). It proposes a new WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system, responsible for pathogen analysis, sharing and storage, and able to support a massive expansion of active PCR testing in the environment, to ‘seek out new pathogens’ with ‘pandemic potential’, which could trigger a pandemic being declared. This could easily lead to a constant state of emergency and resulting restriction of freedoms.
Notably, the first few pages are full of reassuring propaganda. Unlike the proposed IHR amendments, the current Bureau Draft does not appear to directly threaten national or individual sovereignty, stating that it will be implemented ‘with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’(Article 3.1), the phrase which is proposed to be removed in the IHR Amendments.
They also state, in several places, that the treaty will be in accordance with national sovereignty: ‘States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies . . .’ (Article 3.2). Nation states will, however, be obligated to enact the legislation through their own National IHR Focal Points and to use existing or new national laws to fulfil their surveillance, testing, financial and other obligations, both during and between health emergencies.
In the draft, there is also a stated requirement for proportionality: ’Public health decisions for preventing, preparing for and responding to pandemics should be proportionate, such that the benefit of measures implemented outweigh their costs’ (Article 3.12).
Despite these reassuring statements, we cannot afford to be complacent. It is now undeniable that the WHO is mounting a concerted and audacious bid to increase its power, wealth and scope, with the apparent aim of becoming the de facto decision-making authority for global public health for all 194 member nations, in line with its stated One Health ideology and agenda. This is being done in myriad ways, not just through the WHO CA+ and IHR regulations.
Springboarding from the policies, laws and systems already introduced around the world during the last 3 years, the WHO is doubling down and taking multiple steps to implement and enhance an infrastructure and legal framework that will create a health dictatorship unlike no other, with an unprecedented level of power and control placed in the hands of a very few people.
This totalitarian system will serve the elites while trampling on the rights and freedoms of the masses. It is a both a political power grab and a financial coup, using public health and the healthcare system as described in the dystopian One Health Policy, as a Trojan Horse. It is wide open to corruption and conflicts of interest and will enable a huge transfer of taxpayers’ money to private corporations and the elites through the power of the WHO Director General to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) at will, and the creation of a pandemic healthcare industry/cartel which will profit from the policies triggered.
It appears that they are going for broke to achieve this Orwellian goal. On June 5, the WHO launched a digital health partnership with the European Commission with a display of Orwellian double-speak at its finest. They stated that this digital system ‘will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats’ and that ’it is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all’.
These chilling words were echoed in the European Commission announcement, which confirmed the intention for this to become a global system, to be used in relation to anything that constitutes a health threat: ‘In June 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) will take up the EU system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics.’
On the legal front, adoption of the IHR amendments, the ratification of the WHO CA+, and the implementation of the lesser-known UN ‘Our Common Agenda Emergency Platform’ will result in a highly centralised global public health governance which would undermine, and potentially remove, national sovereignty in a health emergency, handing it over to the WHO and, by default, to their funders and stakeholders, which include industry-backed organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and Unicef, detailed in this Substack article by James Roguski.
The aggressive move by the WHO and its partner agencies to wrest control of healthcare decisions from local, regional and national bodies and move it to a centralised system of global conformity, compliance and top-down control, is sinister and a threat to us all. We have already experienced their chaotic and damaging handling of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ in a merely advisory capacity. Their advice was not science-based, rational, moral or ethical, and was heavily influenced by vested interests. Yet here they are negotiating new and binding legal instruments, without even bothering to undertake a full analysis of their handling of the ‘pandemic’ and the catastrophic negative impact of their misguided policies on economies, healthcare systems, education, societal cohesion, physical and mental health etc. This massive overreach by the WHO must be opposed and defeated by the public before it becomes a reality.
Please visit the UKMFA #StopTheWHO Campaign Page to keep updated on Calls to Action, News and Resources and please share them far and wide to raise public awareness of this dangerous threat to national and individual sovereignty and medical ethics. The time to protest, lobby our elected representatives and say ‘No’ to this power-grab is now!
In Part 3 I will look at the ethical aspect of the WHO power grab.