The WHO Can’t Tell the States What to Do

One of our partner organizations, Stand For Health Freedom is developing a petition to the White House, Congress, and the Office of Global Affairs in the US Department of Health and Human Services. (This Office manages the US-WHO interface.). The petition will request that the US add a ‘reservation’ to the proposed International Health Regulations Amendments.

From Stand For Health Freedom:

The World Health Organization uses the International Health Regulations (IHR) as a guide for what nations can and can’t do around the globe in the name of public health. The document details responsibilities countries have to the WHO when there is a public health emergency.
In 2022, the U.S. and other countries proposed an amendment to speed up the process of making future changes to the document, which was adopted but hasn’t yet gone into force.
The amendment will be considered accepted by the U.S. on November 28, 2023.
This timeline amendment is the first of many more proposed amendments, which are expected to be voted on in 2024.
In 2005, the U.S. put a reservation on record protecting states’ rights in public health.
The reservation was as simple as delivering a letter to the WHO.
This is a very simple step our White House can take to show Americans that our Constitution is the supreme law of our land, and no international agreement will threaten it.
We are collecting signatures now to be prepared for the fast pace of changes in global health in 2024 that have been building for three years now.
We will be prepared to use the petition in three ways:
- To send to the White House to show that Americans are watching and willing to join together to stop any threat to our Constitution.
- To support members of Congress who will uphold their oath of office by limiting presidential overreach or signing unconstitutional agreements;
- To deliver to the Office of Global Affairs in the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS), informing those who are directly negotiating the treaty and IHR that this is a simple step they can take to protect Americans; we expect them to follow the precedent set by the previous administration in updating and asserting the reservation for federalism.

Read the petition on Stand for Health Freedom.

The UN’s Pandemic Declaration – precursor to a “Digital Gulag”?

On September 20^th, 2023, the UN General Assembly president approved the Pandemic Prevention Declaration, but 11 nations objected. There was not a full assembly vote.

Read the UN Text here.

“Over the objections of 11 nations, the United Nations General Assembly president today approved a declaration on pandemic prevention that seeks to create a global pandemic authority. Critics said the declaration supports COVID-19-style restrictions, including “closing schools and disproportionately throwing women out of work and into poverty.” Read the full article from Michael Nevradakis at the Defender.

Letters to Dame Barbara Stocking, who is supporting the IHR and Pandemic Treaty for the UK and UN:

From James Roguski’s fabulous substack – please enjoy these amazing letters explaining, from the people’s point of view, that the WHO CA+ and the IHR amendment negotiations are faltering. This reading will give you hope!

Hello Barbara,

We’re both women of roughly the same age, different paths but various life challenges and accomplishments to make us elders in our time.

RE: your recent guest essay, we do need integrity and independence, starting with the question “cui bono?” Essentially, who benefits? And at whose expense?

Influenza has been around as long as humanity; it’s a process by which the body eliminates metabolic wastes, toxins, debris it knows it should get rid of, not retain in the body. When people take measures to interfere with that process, the (crud) remains in the body, encumbering normal physiological processes, adding to the clutter, gradually leading to greater likelihood of more complex diseases. Such diseases are not merely infectious and usually brief, but if impeded become chronic and degenerative, often leading to cancer. To have a Global Public Health Convention making decisions for the entire world, under the guise of ‘equity’ and to ensure that research and innovation continue(s) in the pharmaceutical industries’, is flat out dangerous.

You and I both know that a major donor to the WHO makes enormous amounts of $ through vaccines, and that his poorly disguised intent is more to profit and increase his already ungodly billions than to promote health, and if people don’t get disease along the way, that’s coincidence. This is not about health; it’s about business. Meanwhile the fruits of the current WHO (and allies) latest decree of a global pandemic have resulted in

millions dead, paralyzed, severely encumbered
not from the disease itself but from the measures to deal with it, specifically
the experimental shots — called vaccines only to grant them absolute lack of liability when people are injured by them (See OpenVAERS.com in case you’re not already aware of the damage they’ve done), or by
the medications approved (remdesivir = run death is near), or
by delay of proper treatment and
denial of time tested measures which have clearly been shown effective but whose use interferes with ’emergency use authorization’ claims.
major disruption to economies and basic social structures

Cui bono?

To grant one agency the power to declare a pandemic, to declare treatment — and to deny other measures — is at best out of touch with solid understanding of human nature. (Spoiler alert: People tend to put personal interest over what’s good for others.)

Make sure that people all over the world have access to clean water, to locally grown food — that’s food, not commodity substances, and to self determination. When your goldfish keep getting sick and die, do you clean their tank, or vaccinate the fish? Drugs are not the answer to health; you can’t poison your way to ‘health’ by continually disabling the body’s efforts to heal itself = blocking symptoms.

Please disconnect your gracious self (and any shadow selves as well) from this dishonest scheme. State your respectable and informed word AGAINST any single agency making declarations that apply to everyone on the entire planet, and NO to any effort that seeks to put pharmaceutical businesses in charge. (IOW Don’t let them USE you.) Granted it’s a fabulous business plan — declare a pandemic anytime Pharma comes up with a new drug (or market share falters), (call it a vaccine to eliminate liability), impose one solution/medication on everyone, silence all dissenters, and rake in the profits. Unfortunately, my sense of integrity is such that I’d have a hard time sleeping at night if I were part of such a scheme.

Please, honored gracious senior woman and fellow human traveler, look at the entire picture and ask what’s really going on. Cui bono? What do you want your legacy to really be?

Very truly yours, and if you are ever in the Toledo Ohio USA area, my door is always open for you to drop in, and have a proper cup of tea.

Sincerely,

Karen L.

Dear Dame Barbara Stocking,

I hope this letter finds you well. Your guest essay in the Geneva Health Files was both insightful and thought-provoking. However, after reading it, some additional perspectives warrant your attention to facilitate a deeper understanding of the issues related to the World Health Organization’s CA+ framework.

The current trajectory of WHO CA+ focuses extensively on bolstering the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex (PHEIC), rather than addressing global citizens’ core health and human rights. I would like to emphasize that these negotiations need to be re-evaluated and potentially halted until we resolve many pressing issues.

To offer a more structured approach, I recommend focusing on the following areas before moving forward with any negotiations:

Origins of SARS-CoV-2: Understand its origins to learn the lessons it offers for prevention.
COVID-19 Transmissibility and Risk: Scientifically review the data on its transmissibility and real level of danger.
Social Controls: Evaluate the long-term efficacy and collateral damage caused by implemented social controls such as lockdowns and mask mandates.
Medical Countermeasures: Assess vaccines’ efficacy and long-term safety, particularly mRNA-based solutions, and other medical interventions.
Alternative Measures: Investigate why less invasive or costly measures were largely suppressed or disregarded.
Conflicts of Interest: Examine the role of private profits and other interests that may have influenced public health policies.
Accountability: Investigate the actions and decisions by WHO and other international bodies, especially in the context of their diplomatic immunity.

Please consider these multidimensional aspects in your ongoing discussions about the WHO’s approach to global health governance. At its core, the current leadership seems “unfit for purpose.” A comprehensive review is imperative.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your thoughts on these matters.

Sincerely,

Stewart

Dear Dame Barbara Stocking

Bigger has never proved better, as it is usually too unwieldy. To give to one costly, non-representative world body the power to decide what constitutes a pandemic, the power to decide if there is the possibility of a pandemic; to give such an organisation, funded as it partly is by entities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of whose founders is heavily invested in profiting from pharmaceutical products, who has a terrible reputation for damaging the health of children in India and Africa, the power to decide and not ‘advise’, but make it mandatory for poorly tested mRNA so called vaccines which are actually not vaccines but gene therapies, to be foisted upon the peoples of all countries who fund the WHO, is a really poorly thought through idea.

All it requires is the simple ‘capture’ by nefarious means (not unheard of), of the HEAD of that organisation by any corrupt individuals or company, and the whole world would be at the mercy of criminals. Corporations such as many in the pharmaceutical fields have had to pay massive fines for the damage they have done to people with some of their drugs…take Pfizer as an example. Let us not hand a Carte Blanche to potential miscreants.

If we wish to avoid pandemics each country needs to see to it that their population is healthy and it is up to the People of each country to decide how to approach their government about this matter. A top down, heavy handed approach by an unelected entity such as the WHO, agreed to by unelected representatives from different countries, with absolutely no real public debate having been held about such an important issue as ones personal health, is both insane and undemocratic.

I strongly recommend that you change your mind about promoting this Pandemic Treaty and the terrible amendments to the IHR that have removed the words ‘Human Dignity’, amongst other changes, which bode no good to humanity, for the sake of the well being of said humanity.

In hope I thank you.

Regards,

SuziAlkamyst