The purpose of writing this article is to clarify the situation regarding the so called Pandemic Treaty, and the International Health Regulations. I think James Roguski has done excellent work in wading through the documents and highlighting the key points. I would not have had the patience to do what he has done, and I fully appreciate the effort to which he has gone. This is my attempt to summarise his findings, and those of others. There is also a letter template at the end for sending to MPs in the UK, to at least try to get them to take action before the 1st December 2023 deadline. Hopefully in reading this it will become clear how urgent it is that action is taken now. Time is running out to stop the power grab being attempted by unaccountable bureaucrats in the name of public health.
There are a plethora of treaty names, acronyms, regulations, international bodies and working groups surrounding the document known as the Pandemic Treaty. It is deeply confusing, couched in language that is obfuscating and frankly boring to read. In my view, this is not an accident. Confusion and deception seem to be deliberately built in, in order to facilitate those driving this agenda getting what they want before people realise what has happened.
Valerie Borek, of Stand for Health Freedom, notes that there are two sets of documents of which everyone needs to be aware:
Pandemic Treaty (CA+) - this does not exist as an enforceable international treaty yet.
The international Health Regulations (IHR) – these do exist and are enforceable.
Firstly, the Pandemic Treaty. This is a document that has had many names, and no doubt will have many more before it is finally signed into international law. The timeline of its development is as follows:
2020 – The EU said a treaty was needed as a result of the covid19 pandemic. It has been a driving force behind the document.
2021 – The Panel for Pandemic Prevention Preparedness Response Recovery Report. The panel that produced this report said a Framework Convention was necessary. According to Roguski, the format is very similar to the Framework Convention for tobacco from 20 years ago. This Framework Convention is called the Convention Agreement. It should be noted that adding protocols to a Framework is apparently very easy.
At some point, the Convention Agreement became the WHO's CONVENTION AGREEMENT OR OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT ON PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS, PREVENTION AND RESPONSE otherwise known as WHO CA+, the so-called Pandemic Treaty.
2nd June 2023 – The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) published another version of “The Treaty”, called THE BUREAU'S TEXT. This is the latest version of “The Treaty”.
Roguski argues the goal of the Bureau Text/CA+ is to set up an infrastructure of laboratories for genomic sequencing; in essence a logistics network to build the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex based on fear of potential pathogens. He sees the Treaty as a venture capital prospectus for those who would like to profit from that fear.
Secondly, the International Health Regulations (IHR):
1969 – The International Health Regulations replaced the earlier International Sanitary Regulations. The IHR were agreed by the delegates to the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision making body of the WHO, which meets once a year in May. No government objected, so they became law.
2005 – The International Health Regulations were amended by the same process.
November 2021 – A special meeting of the World Health Assembly was held after some WHO member states called for one at the 74th WHA meeting in May 2021. It considered:
“...the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response with a view towards the establishment of an intergovernmental process to draft and negotiate such a convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response, taking into account the report of the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies.”
because of the “inequity” of the poorer nations not getting fair access to the vaccines, as richer nations had snapped them up.
24th May 2022 – IHR Amendments were submitted by the US, UK, EU and Monaco. If not rejected, they will come into effect at the end of November 2023.
N.B. YOUR SILENCE IS CONSIDERED TO BE YOUR CONSENT
The five Articles amended were: 55, 59, 61, 62 and 63.
Article 59: The time period for amendments coming into force is shortened from 24 to 12 months.
Article 61: The time period for delegates to reject an amendment is shortened from 18 to 10 months
Other countries wanted to submit changes as this action woke them up to the fact that they could. All member nations were asked to submit proposed amendments by September 2022.
September 2022 – 307 proposals were submitted. These were kept secret until December 2022.
May 2023 – 307 amendments were discussed, but revised versions have NOT been published openly. These versions must be submitted by January 2024.
NB This will be after the time limit changes, if no nation state delegate objects to that change.
As Borek has pointed out, the IHR have existed for decades without specific consent from national parliamentary bodies. The delegates from the member states agree to amendments to the IHR at the WHA meetings. If there is no objection from member states, amendments take on the force of international law.
"The International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 are an international instrument that is legally binding on all World Health Organization (WHO) Member States.”
I have heard many UK MPs saying that there is no possibility of a transfer of sovereignty to the WHO, because such a transfer would have to be debated in Parliament, and no MP would ever agree to it. What they fail to grasp is that this is territory that has already been ceded to the WHO, and such changes have already been made at the international level, apparently without them even knowing, let alone debating and voting on them.
By accepting the regulations in the past, and by accepting amendments to them without the specific consent of member states’ governing bodies, the precedent has been set. Silence is taken as consent. In order to prevent an amendment to the IHR taking on the force of law, member states have to object within the time frame allowed for such an objection. This is why the changes made in May 2022 are so significant. The window of opportunity to resist a WHO power grab is being drastically reduced. Given how little attention our MPs currently pay to the what is going on with the IHR now, because they assume nothing can be done without their consent, these amendments will almost certainly make things worse for the ordinary citizens of the world who are excluded from having any input into such changes, because they are not being scrutinised properly by the people who are accountable to us.
Over 300 amendments will presented in May 2024. At the moment, national delegates will not see the final document until they show up to vote. Regarding this, it should be noted that the WHA is breaking its own rules in the way these amendments are being brought forward. They are supposed to be presented four months before the WHA meeting, but the Working Group for the amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) has said it will not meet this deadline, and that this doesn't matter, as the rules don't apply to them.
If people doubt this is an attitude prevalent amongst the ruling elite currently governing the world, they only have to look to the EU for an example of this disregard for rules the rest of us are expected to follow. Protocol 7 of EU Law gives those who work for the EU immunity from prosecution, with the notable exception of the MEPs.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/PRO/07 (see Article 11 (a)).
This 'rules for thee but not for me' attitude to the law does not bode well for the future of humanity, given how much power these people wield, and how much more they wish to arrogate to themselves.
In light of the above, of great concern is the proposal to introduce digital certification. The WHO wants to have a vaccine certificate, a testing certificate, a prophylaxis certificate and a recovery certificate, all stored digitally for each person. Such digital certification will require digital identification as part of the process of implementing a world wide tracking system in order to enforce this, all in the name of protecting everyone's health. In practice, such a system will do no such thing. The covid19 vaccines are known not to prevent transmission of the disease, or provide protection to the recipient, so what use a vaccine certificate would be in health terms is anyone's guess.
“Questions also arise around the efficacy of a potential vaccine. The little we know of the current generation of COVID-19 vaccines raises serious questions regarding their ability to protect people from infection. We know all the candidates tested to date in non-human primates failed to protect any of the monkeys from infection of the nasal passages, the primary route of human infection.”
Prof. William Haseltine, June 2020
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/
"We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.”
Prof. William Haseltine, September 2020
In 2021, the EU installed its covid19 digital vaccine passport which was used until people stopped bothering with it. It expired at the end of June 2023. The EU then handed over what it had developed to the WHO for future use. It looks very much like the EU was used as a testing ground for this new digital identification system. This is deeply worrying, not least because it is very easy to see how this could be connected to the introduction of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), signalling the end of human freedom as we know it. EU representatives have recently been boasting about the arrival of the EU digital wallet, to which they add, now we have it, we have to have something to put in it.
“Critics who warn about total government control of citizens’ personal finances through programmable money have long been saying that eIDs would be the first step toward an economy run on CBDCs. Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has now even confirmed this as one of the main goals of the new legislation.
“Right after this agreement, Commissioner Breton said: ‘Now that we have a digital identity wallet, we have to put something in it…” conservative Dutch MEP Rob Roos (ECR), also present at the meeting, said. “What he meant is the digital euro, also known as a CBDC.”
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/privacy-fears-as-eu-moves-forward-with-digital-id/
In addition, there are the serious health risks posed by continuing down this path. According to Roguski, article 6 of the IHR that were amended in 2005 says a vaccine is acceptable if the WHO says it is. Given the funding the WHO receives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates has invested in vaccines and has boasted about the excellent returns he has made on his investment) and GAVI (also closely linked to Bill Gates), there is a clear conflict of interest in this arrangement.
“Much of the groups’ clout with the WHO stems simply from money. Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, the Gates Foundation, Gavi, and the Wellcome Trust have donated collectively more than $1.4 billion to the WHO — a significantly greater amount than most other official member states, including the United States and the European Commission, according to data provided by the WHO.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/global-covid-pandemic-response-bill-gates-partners-00053969
The WHO is also building a network of laboratories that will test its vaccines. In effect, the WHO wants to check the work of its largest funders and then force the results on the world's population by saying individuals cannot move unless they submit to the medical procedures the WHO deems necessary. Given the information available regarding harms done by all versions of the covid19 vaccine, this is not only completely unacceptable, it is also breathtakingly stupid, or breathtakingly evil.
What’s in the Pfizer Documents?
https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/cca-iv-big-pharma/what-s-in-the-pfizer-documents
As an aside, I find it interesting that Roguski reports the Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) met from October 2-6, 2023 to discuss the proposed Global Digital Health Certification Network. Hamas launched its attack on Israel on the 7thOctober. At the time, everyone noted this was a day after the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, and assumed the date had been chosen deliberately by Hamas to commemorate that event. It has bothered me that Hamas opened hostilities a day late so to speak. It is my understanding that Islamic fundamentalists have a very good grasp of the history of the wars of their faith, and it struck me as odd they waited until the 7th. If Hamas had wished to honour the Yom Kippur attack of 6th October 1973, then to my mind it would have launched the attack on 6th October 2023, not on the 7th. However, if the goal was to stop anyone asking questions about precisely what the WGIHR had decided, then focussing attention on the Middle East the day after their discussions had finished makes sense to me. I am not trying to suggest that Hamas is complicit in these apparent attempts to turn the WHO into a version of a dictatorial world government, I doubt they are privy to such high level decisions if those are being made, but they have certainly been very useful in their timing. Or maybe I am just suffering from apophenia as a result of nearly four years of government sponsored derangement techniques. I am sure many people are, and there is no reason why I would be an exception. Who knows? Nevertheless, the mismatch in dates bothers me.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Yom-Kippur-War
Another thought that concerns me: digital identification systems inevitably involve the harvesting of personal data from individuals required to use them. This raises an interesting question. From various podcasts discussing where we are now with the development of AI, I gather it is not established in law who owns our digital identity. Given that the patenting of life has already been allowed by the courts, I don't think we can assume we own our digital identities, even though it is based on 'our' data. After all, by accepting cookies, and ticking all the online terms and conditions boxes without actually reading what they entail, people have been giving away their data for years in exchange for access to so called “free” social media platforms. If you can patent life, you can surely claim ownership of the data that goes with that life.
To me it looks like the law has not caught up with the many rapidly introduced technical changes, and law makers are hopelessly ignorant about the dangers and possibilities opened up by new technology. I guess this is because they have not grown up with it and they do not understand how it all works. If our data is not ours, then to my mind this opens up a whole new set of possibilities for the enslavement of humanity, which feeds into the idea of data as the new oil.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318031256_Patenting_of_Life_Forms also the case of Percy Schmeiser, the Canadian farmer, and Monsanto.
How AI Will DISRUPT The Entire World In 3 Years (Prepare Now While Others Panic) | Emad Mostaque
ChatGPT and the Dawn of Computerized Hyper-Intelligence | Brian Roemmele | EP 357
For these reasons, I think it is of the utmost importance that people everywhere do their best to prevent the IHR Amendments being implemented. It may be that your representative ignores your attempt to alert them to the deadline looming at the end of November. I have written to mine three times on this issue, and have yet to receive a direct response to my questions. All I get is a standard reply that looks like it has been presented to MPs of all parties as a means of fobbing off annoying constituents without the MP having to think too much. It is frustrating, but I still think it is worth trying, even if this particular deadline comes and goes without any nation state objecting. Time is running out; but it has not run out yet, and even after 1st December these changes can be stopped. We just will have less time in which to do it. So feel free to use the template included below, or to use the information here and on James Roguski's site to draft your own letter. Send it to your representative however hopeless you think the situation is. There is no harm in trying, and it may be the start of the process that bludgeons them into wakefulness, even now, at this late stage.
Letter template:
For the UK, how to find your MP:
Dear
Re: Amendments to the International Health Regulations of the WHO
In January 2022, the current US administration proposed a package of amendments to 13 Articles of the International Health Regulations (IHR) that sought to reduce the time allowed to consider and implement any future amendments from 24 months to 6 months. Owing to enormous worldwide opposition, these proposals were not considered by the 75th World Health Assembly in May 2022.
However, in violation of Article 55 section 2 of the IHR, which states:
“The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.”
new amendments to 5 Articles of the International Health Regulations were adopted on 27th May 2022. One of these amendments is to Article 59. This amendment shortens the timeline in which future amendments can be rejected by national governments before they enter into legally-binding force. The deadline for rejecting these amendments is 1st December 2023.
If the amendment to Article 59 of the IHR is allowed to stand, the timeline for altering the IHR's will change from a two year process to a one year process. This will happen as follows:
Currently the time allowed to reject or make reservation about a proposed amendment is 18 months. This will shorten to 10 months.
Currently the time before an adopted amendment goes into force is 24 months. This will shorten to 12 months.
The amendment to Article 59 serves no health related purpose. It will not improve the health of anyone anywhere, nor will it enhance anyone's safety; quite the opposite given the increased likelihood of catastrophic mistakes being made when proposed changes have a significantly reduced time period in which their effects can be considered.
The primary purpose of the change to Article 59 is to reduce the time available to reject the next round of amendments. These have been negotiated behind closed doors by the Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR), which met on October 2-6, 2023 to discuss the proposed Global Digital Health Certification Network.
It is very important that the member states of the WHO object to these amendments to the IHR or they will take on the force of international law. Such changes do not need to be debated in Parliament. This has already happened with amendments in the past. The precedent has already been set. I urge you and your colleagues in Parliament to do your job and actually represent the interests of your constituents instead of the Pharmaceutical industry. It is manifestly not in our nation's, or any other nations', interests to cede the kind of power the WHO is seeking over us through the use of the IHR Amendments.
Please tell the UK delegate to the World Health Assembly, Chris Whitty, to reject these changes before it is too late.
Yours sincerely,
The International Health Regulations:
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf
The version of the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted on May 27, 2022:
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_ACONF7Rev1-en.pdf
Video recording of the amendments being adopted:
The amended Articles to the IHR, as they will be if they are not rejected by December 1, 2023.
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_R12-en.pdf
Other useful links:
A link to the Rumble video where James Roguski is interviewed by Noor Bin Laden is embedded in this article:
READ THE DAMN DOCUMENTS
The media and our public servants have CLEARLY NOT READ the amendments that were adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2022, nor have they read the documents that are currently being negotiated.
The Deadline is December 1, 2023
December 1, 2023 is the deadline for heads of state around the world to REJECT the amendments to the International Health Regulations that WERE ADOPTED on May 27, 2022.
“Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) is a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and activating a grassroots movement to protect our health and our families.”
https://standforhealthfreedom.com/about-us/
Bureau’s text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (WHO CA+)
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb5/A_INB5_6-en.pdf
Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022)
WGIHR_Submissions-en 307 amendments nations initial proposals from Dec 2022.pdf
https://brownstone.org/articles/amendments-who-ihr-annotated-guide/
Another interesting and informative article. Thanks Eleanor.
Editorial request: Please begin with the 'bottom line' summary, by the time getting through all the plabara chewing on the problem without the bottom line, the solution (or recommendation) and the crux of the problem gets lost in the rhetoric.
Personally, I will be posting my personal opt-out to the Health and Human Services W.H.0. interface, who does not have an Oath of Office or an SF61 Appointment to Public Office, with notice and Caveat of my Political Domicile in the 10th Amendment as one of the people populating the American republic (22 USC 611 definition of "American republic" that ANYONE that is EVERYONE may claim political domicile within) noting reservation of all rights to property and denying all benefits without God noting "I Bring the Land"... << thereby removing adhesion to any International, that is Maritime Admiralty, Agreements that bind the corporate maritime United States and their property with caveat of 100-million is tax liability for any and every occurrence of umbrage offending any right title interest duty or obligation in which my interest lie.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/oga/global-health-security/international-health-regulations/index.html