Share this article
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

They take away your right to medicines of your choice, freedom of speech, privacy. Can impose border closures, vaccine mandates, quarantines. And they are serious about enforcement.

Our organizations presented a symposium on the WHO and the Great Reset hosted by Senator Ron Johnson for Congressmembers  on November 8, 2023

The document above was published by the EU in March 2023 and the page below is a screenshot from it with my red markings.

Make the Pandemic Treaty and new IHR amendments legally binding

Must use the One Health Approach—which I will explain later

Perform surveillance of humans, animals and environment and sequence what you find—this plan goes along with the G7, G20

3 types of surveillance must be performed—surveillance for viruses, surveilling your private medical records and surveilling your social media presence for possible censorship

I will focus mainly on the amendments because the delegates have not come to agreement on the treaty, and may discard it and expand the amendments

The proposed IHR amendments were compiled into the above document and revealed last February. They have been negotiated continuously since then, but in secret, and WHO intends to break its rule, continue negotiations and not reveal them to the public until a vote in May. This provides nations a good reason to refuse to agree since they will not have the usual 4 months to study them.

Recommendations are now binding although the term recommendations remains

The amendments expanded the scope of the document from public health risks to all risks that might affect public health—to include risks to animals, ecosystems, climate, etc.

Then the loophole for human rights and access to desired medications is added—so human rights and access to desired medications can be quashed when it is *necessary*—-the document fails to explain when this might be necessary.

See slide below: Developing nations know the developed nations want potential biological warfare agents = potential pandemic pathogens.  This is what Peter Daszak was collecting from 31 countries.  These could already be biological warfare agents, or precursors.

It is against the law to share or proliferate biological weapons, but that is exactly what both the treaty and the amendments are trying to do—promising developing nations they will pay for them if they can be used to create a useful drug or vaccine.  But what about those being used for biological weapons?  Are nations to be paid for them too?

The document tries to put a happy face on this by claiming they won’t be shared with violent elements. This sleazy attempt to protect those participating in this charade reveals the true nature of this document.

This slide demonstrates that the word shall has a clear legal meaning — and that meaning is that the action is mandatory. Nations must obey. They are not allowed discretion.

Article 43 is where the authors buried their plan to restrict the use of medications during pandemics if they claim the use is disproportionate or excessive—in other words, INEQUITABLE

The Emergency Committee is handpicked by the Director-General.  And the Director-General is not obligated to follow their advice.  He declared a monkeypox emergency of international concern when his Emergency Committee voted against it, twice. This article has detailed instructions about how an appeal to use other medications (if a nation wants to challenge the WHO and allow citizens to choose their own medicines) can be made, and that the decision of the appeal shall be final. This is an unusual part of the document; other sections are not so absolute. It seems very important for the WHO to be able to restrict our medical choices.

See below: “I’m from the WHO, and I’m here to help you” counter the spread of misinformation through the MSM, social media and all other methods.

Let me go off on an important tangent here.

One Health has no solid meaning.  It basically claims that humans, animals, plants and ecosystems are all part of One Health– that everything on the planet is interrelated and affects health.  The One Health Approach is vague, and its proponents have great difficulty pointing to anything that has benefited from applying the One Health approach, or even explaining what this approach might be.  There is no there, there.

The use of language gives it away—The meaning of sentences is obscure.  But it wraps everything in the world into the One Health bundle

The requirement to follow the One Health approach is embedded in the treaty, and in US domestic law—and it is being suggested as a way to reduce the status of humans

Below are 4 earlier drafts of the treaty, with entirely different names to keep everyone confused

This is the most recent treaty draft, and it is now called an Agreement to make people think it is not going to become a treaty—but according to international law it would be a treaty.

Jeremy Farrar, who founded CEPI with Bill Gates at the WEF in 2017, pioneered the idea of producing a vaccine in 100 days and manufacturing it for an entire nation in 30 more days.  This cannot be done safely so the treaty requires a liability shield for manufacturers .

Obviously this is reckless and very dangerous, even if there is no intent to harm.

He has been moved to the WHO as Chief Scientist (a major reduction in pay and status) to carry out the pandemic plan and the 100 day vaccines.

Jeremy was also the mastermind of the Nature Medicine/”Proximal Origin” coverup.

The CDC tells us it takes 10-15 years to bring a safe vaccine to market, not 130 days.

Both WHO documents are extremely interested in every nation developing a genomics capacity.  Does the globalist plan include decoding everyone’s genome?

When you have global sharing of potential biological warfare agents, you will be unable to tell who started the next pandemic, and whether it was deliberate or accidental

This man, who has never treated a single patient would become the doctor for 8 billion people if this plan goes forward

This is how many of the dictatorial policies were put into place—with emergency laws passed after 9/11.  Does Italy have similar laws on the books that need to be revoked?

This is a law enacted last year that says the US will obey the WHO and the global biosecurity agenda, and use One Health. 

To be clear, gain of function research is the same thing as biological warfare research.  The definition is trying to make microorganisms more transmissible or more pathogenic—more deadly.  The last version of the treaty actually instructed nations that were performing this type of research to minimize unnecessary hurdles to it—in other words, to be less careful—to increase the chances of lab escapes.  Or perhaps to make labs more sloppy so they can be blamed for lab escapes.

When all nations have shared the same biological warfare agents, it will be impossible to know where a pandemic started.

As a ‘pandemic’ in WHO parlance does not include a requirement of severity but simply broad spread – a property common to respiratory viruses – this leaves a lot of room for the DG to proclaim emergencies

The vaccine mandates – must go.  We must acknowledge that mandating experimental products is  violation of the Nuremberg Code.  A violation of bodily autonomy and our human rights.

And officials who forced their use even after knowing they did not prevent spread needs to face serious consequences.

Similar Posts