Supreme Court Rules On W.H.O. TODAY, Judges EXPANDED Our Case To Be "An Organization Against The WHO and Costa Rica Ministry Of Health"!
We only sued the Ministry Of Health To ANSWER about our beef with WHO and Tedros. We did not expect the court to say our claim is against the WHO directly... What will the court do today? Sue the WHO!
TERMINATE TEDROS! MAKE WHO CHIEF SCIENTIST JEREMY FARRAR APOLOGIZE TO IOJ FOR CENSORSHIP!
Annul the IHR Amendments, Stop Global Censorship, Stop Covid Vaccines NOW!
We have an update!
COSTA RICA’S TOP COURT IS RULING TODAY ON HOW WE START OUR VERY EXTENSIVE CASE AGAINST WHO AND MEMBER STATES SERIOUS BREACHES!!!
We will find out the courts ruling soon and let you all know the next steps.
This is THE only GLOBAL case we are aware of to fix all the key issues, so please share far and wide and support these serious and efforts as much as you are able so you can truly help these serious efforts to carry them through to completion.
Supreme Courts Constitutional Chamber has apparently expanded a simple case of ours where we are just asking for a response from the Health Ministry to review our case against WHO.
It was unexpectedly expanded by the top justices to now be "an organization against the WHO and Ministry of Health". We find this to be a very interesting and welcomed development, perhaps a game changer!
The court will issue their ruling today
We ask for prayers and support!
Please pray they either refer us to international human rights court to finally get our day in court to FULLY Sue the WHO or to force the Ministry of Health to actually attend our claims against WHO, rather than merely answer like we asked!
No matter what happens, no matter what the court does, todays ruling is a huge milestone for Interest of Justice toward the mission of noble civil combat to Sue the WHO and make things right for humanities sake.
It’s the first case we filed (out of around 45 cases) where the court added in WHO on their own, obviously seeing the content that we want an answer to is a VERY serious dispute with Tedros and WHO that has been ignored by WHO and all Member States for 2+ years!
The case we asked them to simply respond to is the juggernaut global case: IHR Amendments being void, UN censorship, bad PCR plandemic, why there is a duty to Terminate Tedros and make the Chief Scientist apologize for rigging science... so much more!
This particular letter of liability and Risk Report (in court now AND POSTED BELOW - MANDATE THE STATE) was quoted by the VP and Health Minister when she disassociated from the Treaty like we requested her to during the WHA77 in May 2024.
This letter is so important that we are reposting it at the bottom in full, but we highly advise you to read it in the original post below for more context and for you to learn the laws of State and International Organizations Responsibility. Much more information is available in the following very long and very important (but hardly read) post:
The WHO Internal Oversight just sent every topic in the letter back to National Authorities...
National Authorities already just expanded it to be against WHO : )
Apparently we are off to the races to begin the full dispute with WHO and CR! We think it will probably be sent off to International Human Rights Court to annul the IHR Amendments and attend the complaint, or something interesting in the saga...
We will keep you posted!
The court has expanded our request for an answer from Costa Rica’s delegate to “an Organization against the WHO and Ministry of Health”:
Below is the exact verbatim letter the Delegates received during WHA77 and which we took to court to get an answer to. The following letter we sent during WHA77 May 2024 is in court and BEING RULED ON TODAY!
Read it and it’s easy to see why the judges think its against both the WHO and also the Ministry of Health. Is the case against WHO starting now? What will happen next?
Sue the WHO! We can and must get it done to save humanity!
Urgent GPW14 Risk Report To Member States and WHO Executive Board For WHA77
Declaration of harm by WHO Monopolization of Participation in Science & Procedural Violations
Addressing Agenda Item 17 - GPW14 and IHR Amendments
Urgent WHO Disputes Needing Resolution
Notice of Claim dispute of a private nature
Introduction:
Esteemed Members of the WHO Executive Board and Representatives of Member States,
We write today to address critical concerns regarding Agenda Item 17 - GPW14, the 14th General Programme of Work for 2025-2028. This risk report aims to highlight the reasons for not funding the WHO under the current circumstances and instead pursuing legal action against the organization for alleged human rights violations and monopolistic practices in scientific discourse. These concerns are substantiated by documented evidence of censorship and exclusion of civil society organizations (CSOs) from crucial consultations.
Evidence of Censorship and Exclusion
Documented Censorship of CSOs
“For the purposes of GPW 14, the term “global health ecosystem” refers to the complex network of interconnected players at community, country, regional and global levels – across governmental and non-State actors, and public and private, health and health-related sectors – that exert influence on the health and well-being of people, whether directly or indirectly.”
Despite the Member States mandating WHO to consult with CSO’s for GPW14 and despite the WHO actually starting the first CSO consultation process, the reality is that on October 30, 2023, the Interest of Justice and Free Speech Association were censored during the GPW14 CSO consultation, and later ignored about the problem in the 12 January 2024 consultation.
Steering Committee Reports Are Biased
In the reports from the GPW14 Steering Committee to Member States, they failed to consider key input. These dissenting CSO’s that were censored by the GPW14 Steering Committee, headed by Jeremy Farar the WHO Chief Scientist (who has a specific duty to facilitate participation), comprised 7.4% of the 27 participants, and yet WHO overtly censored them from sharing their relevant information. This exclusion is documented in a letter published on the Interest of Justice Substack, called “WHO Censored Free Speech Association's Comments Yesterday In The WPG14 CSO "Consultation" which details the systematic denial of participation in scientific discourse due to perceived bias within the WHO. This exclusion undermines the principles of transparency, inclusivity, and respect for freedom of expression, which are fundamental to the legitimacy and effectiveness of WHO's policies. Additionally, the Free Speech Association was censored for sharing a link to a video of UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, stating that the UN "owns the science" and had partnered with Google to ensure that UN-approved climate science appears at the top of search results, effectively suppressing dissenting views to Agenda 2030. This action directly impacts the validity of the UN Agenda 2030, SDG’s and related climate and health agendas, as it creates a false climate emergency consensus by censoring dissenting scientific opinions.
A Public Portal to Participate Was Never Provided By WHO After Publicly Stating Multiple Times They Will Produce One
Despite promising a public portal to participate in GPW14, and despite our organizations asking to provide one, because WHO omitted their duty of participation as promised, the WHO completely failed to provide any place for the public to participate and comment. This means the entire public would be negatively affected by being unable to participate in the design, approval and implementation of health policies which affect them, a situation which denied health rights and rights to participate. In countries where right to participate is enshrined in the constitution this is an issue of unconstitutionality in the national level. It also means the entire GPW14 is not valid due to this grave omission and failure to achieve WHO’s original promise of participation and a truly inclusive “global health ecosystem”.
Joint Letter to WHA77
Interest of Justice also signed an important letter presented at WHA77 by the Global Health Council, The letter in support of FENSA has been sent to the Chairs of the World Health Organization (WHO) Programme, Budget and Administration Committee (PBAC) and the 155th Executive Board. The letter has also been forwarded to Dr. Tedros. This letter, signed by over 130 signatures from both Non-State Actors (NSAs) in Official Relations with WHO and Non-NSAs/CSOs, complained about the exclusion of CSOs by the WHO and the shrinking civil society space. The letter emphasized that the WHO's actions are limiting the participation of diverse voices in global health governance, which is essential for the development of inclusive and effective health policies.
Specific Concerns Raised by Key CSO Representatives Dustin Bryce, Lady Xylie, and Other Censored, Persecuted and Marginalized Civil Society Harmed By WHO
Dustin Bryce from Interest of Justice and Lady Xylie from Free Speech Association have been vocal about their exclusion from WHO consultations. They, and other CSO's were initially chosen by the WHO as relevant stakeholders April 2022, as mandated by the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), meaning that WHO recognizes them as “having relevant information to share”. However, after dissenting to certain scientific views, they were excluded from further participation and even overtly censored in WHO consultations’s. Despite attending every WHO and HHS OGA stakeholder engagement hearing and submitting numerous letters and ethics complaints, their concerns have not been addressed. Please see public participation video May 3, 2023 HHS Stakeholder Listening Session explaining the WHO’s non response https://rumble.com/v2lwy0c-ioj-speaking-truth-to-power-exposing-w.h.o.-crimes-may-3-2023- hhs-stakehold.html as well as. https://rumble.com/v10s1rx-interest-of-justice-establishes-strict-limits-for-the-who-pandemic-treaty-p.html?mref=138ft6&mc=6x039
Unanswered Ethics Complaints
Interest of Justice has filed scientific, human rights, corruption and ethics complaints filed on 1/23/2023 4:59 -881786000902 and 11/30/2022 2:52AM - file number 637327854202 against the WHO Director-General and Chief Scientist. These complaints, supported by witnesses including Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer, and other top experts, have gone unanswered for around 2 years. This lack of response raises serious questions about the WHO's commitment to ethical standards and accountability.
We stand firm in our assertion that WHO acts against the broader constituency of the global health ecosystem, showing extreme bias, discrimination towards us and disregard for the publics right to participate. WHO has shown their own lack of integrity in the lead up to asking for more funding than ever in history, under the guise that civil society and the public will be included in meaningful participation, which is cause for lack of trust to be highly justified to the point of defunding the WHO and holding them responsible for serious breaches, rather than approve GPW14 and funding of contested programs and policies.
Please see one of many notice of claims/disputes: May 21, 2023, Notice of claim for responsibility to "The Health Monopoly": United States And Other Wrongdoer States, Covid Action Platform (WHO, WEF, Wellcome), WHO Vaccine Pre qualification EUL Program (WHO, FDA-CBER, EMA et al), UN Procurement including pharmaceutical Sponsors and Investors or Funders of WHO and all challenged programs and funds including Agenda 2030 SDG’s Not Backed By Science and violate Jus Cogens
WHA76 and WHA77 Plea To Terminate Tedros and Settle Our Disputes Still Not Answered for 2 years
The following was presented to the WHO executive Board last year for WHA76, with no response, and sent to ethics with no response for around 2 years:
Please find the main grounds for Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus termination on the spot outlined below, which must be responded to within 8 days or less if urgent according to WHO Staff rules. We think is past due and therefore, very urgent.
As you are aware, according to Staff Rule 1070.1 A staff member’s continuing or fixed-term appointment may be terminated if his performance is unsatisfactory or if he proves unsuited to his work or to international service and under 1075.2, A staff member may be summarily dismissed for serious misconduct, if the seriousness of the misconduct warrants it, subject to the notification of charges and reply procedure required by Staff Rule 1130 Such staff member shall not be entitled to notice of termination, indemnity, repatriation grant or end-of-service grant.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus must be terminated under 1075.2 and 1110.1.7 summary dismissal for serious misconduct because the seriousness of the misconduct warrants it and he is non responsive to multiple notification of charges and reply procedure required by Staff Rule 1130 where he is accused of a prima facie claim of serious undue experimentation in violation of Costa Rica biomedical reserch law 9235 Article 78, 79.
Please find the main grounds for Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus termination on the spot outlined below, which must be responded to within 8 days or less if urgent according to WHO Staff rules. We think is past due and therefore, very urgent.
As you are aware, according to Staff Rule 1070.1 A staff member’s continuing or fixed-term appointment may be terminated if his performance is unsatisfactory or if he proves unsuited to his work or to international service and under 1075.2, A staff member may be summarily dismissed for serious misconduct, if the seriousness of the misconduct warrants it, subject to the notification of charges and reply procedure required by Staff Rule 1130 Such staff member shall not be entitled to notice of termination, indemnity, repatriation grant or end-of-service grant.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus must be terminated under 1075.2 and 1110.1.7 summary dismissal for serious misconduct because the seriousness of the misconduct warrants it and he is non-responsive to multiple notification of charges and reply procedure required by Staff Rule 1130 where he is accused of a prima facie claim of serious undue experimentation in violation of Costa Rica biomedical reserch law 9235 Article 78, 79
The misconduct pertinent to this claim, which hereby invokes the WHA duty to terminate Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is as follows:
110.8 “Misconduct” means:
110.8.1 any improper action by a staff member in his official capacity; 110.8.4 any conduct contrary to the terms of his oath or declaration
Under CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES Section 22 Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the specialized agencies only and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves Each specialized agency shall have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of any official in any case where, in its opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the specialized agency.
Humanity forcefully invokes Article 22 and claims the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the specialized agency.
Of critical importance is that humanity also invokes the following HHS OGA's duty in Section 16 Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of members, not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the specialized agencies. Consequently, a member not only has the right but is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representatives in any case where, in the opinion of the member, the immunity would impede the course of justice, and where it can be waived without prejudice to the purpose for which the immunity is accorded.
Ghebreyesus’s misconduct and the WHO UN procurement irregularities regarding the covid-19 declared emergency and response, we invoke Section 23 Each specialized agency shall co-operate at all times with the appropriate authorities of Member States to facilitate the proper administration of justice, secure the observance of police regulations and prevent the occurrence of any abuses in connexion with the privileges, immunities and facilities mentioned in this article.
The WHO's Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is charged with two counts of violating Biomedical Research Law 9234 ARTICLE 78, 79
These are violations of non derogable rights to free thought and the the right to be free of medical and scientific experimentation enshrined in ICCPR and Siracusa Principles Article 69, and also violates the UN Supplier Code of Conduct as well as Costa Rica civil code Article 47, Images and photographs with stereotyped roles that reinforce discriminatory attitudes towards social sectors cannot must be published, reproduced, exhibited or sold. See: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/ Where the UN and WHO laundered censorship and paid private contractors to censor, defame and harass our Chief Scientist Dr. Yeadon, presumably for his scientific dissent.
Implications of Censorship and Exclusion
Impact on Civil Society
The exclusion of CSOs from the GPW14 consultations has significant implications for civil society. It prevents diverse voices from contributing to the development of global health policies, undermining the democratic process and potentially leading to policies that do not adequately address the needs of all stakeholders. This exclusion also violates the rights of CSOs to participate in public affairs and to freedom of expression.
As recently noted by the UN HR Rappaport for Cultural Rights, “the same human rights approach is required by States when acting as members of international organizations. They cannot ignore their human rights obligations but must actively ensure that the effective participation of civil society is guaranteed in discussions with international organizations that relate to the benefits and harms of scientific products. That is currently not the case. More space must be ensured for civil society and for more consideration of alternative scientific understandings beyond the prevailing ones in decision‑making by such organizations
Emergencies, real or inflated, have been used to bypass democratic control in scientific use. There is a need to use law, including human rights law, in implementing science, and to reinforce the legal, regulatory and policy framework to allow for democratic control over the scientific enterprise.” - UN HR Rappaport for Cultural Rights - April 5, 2024
Monopolistic Practices in Scientific Discourse
The WHO's actions can be seen as part of a broader trend of monopolistic practices in scientific discourse, where certain voices are privileged over others, which is a violation of cultural rights to participate in science. This undermines the integrity of scientific debate and can lead to the suppression of important perspectives and innovations. Such practices are contrary to the principles of open and inclusive scientific inquiry, equality and participatory and open government.
Bias and Dysfunction in the WHO's Current Process for Handling Complaints Against the Director-General
Agenda Item 24.2 Process of handling and investigating potential allegations against WHO Directors-General addresses significant concerns regarding the current process for handling complaints, allegations and investigations against the WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Our organizations are very interested in this topic.
Since 2022, organizations such as Interest of Justice, Free Speech Association, and individuals like Dustin Bryce and Lady Xylie have filed numerous complaints against Dr. Tedros and the Chief Scientist. These complaints include allegations of serious breaches affecting public health and safety, crimes, and research misconduct. Despite attending every WHO and HHS OGA stakeholder engagement hearing and submitting copious letters, their concerns have not been addressed.
This ongoing lack of response highlights the bias and dysfunction within the WHO's current process, which fails to ensure accountability and transparency and ensures the WHO’s monopolization of information and science, including blocking the access to justice and denying inclusion by dissenting CSO’s, such as us stakeholders who are excluded by WHO from meaningful participation. This is a serious breach and we request all Member States assistance to cooperate to bring to an end the serious breach of obligations regarding these serious unanswered claims and charges.
Specific Allegations
Research Misconduct and Experimentation Violating Laws: Allegations include research misconduct and experimentation that violate the laws of various countries. These serious breaches have significant implications for public health and safety.
Crimes Against Humanity: There are allegations of crimes against humanity involving the WHO EUL covid vaccine, risky mRNA platform technology and misuse of power and confidentiality clauses to hide known adverse effects and trial data, omitting what is required for informed consent, which require immediate and thorough investigation. The attack on free opinion and freedom to not participate in science, research and experimentation, and persecution means that non derogable rights are affected, requiring immediate attention and settlement of the unresolved scientific and ethical disputes and serious breaches.
Exclusion and Censorship: The WHO has systematically excluded and censored civil society organizations (CSOs) and individuals who dissent from the organization's scientific views or question its policies. This undermines the principles of transparency, inclusivity, and freedom of expression.
Failing Audits: Poor performance and extreme waste of resources.
Serious Breaches: of International Obligations owed Erga Omnes to uphold human rights and scientific integrity, causing harm, death and torts for the commercial profit and benefit of WHO’s private funders.
Lack of Independent Investigation
Inadequate Response from WHO
The WHO's Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) conducted a preliminary review of allegations against Dr. Tedros, but the process and findings were not made public. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about the WHO's commitment to ethical standards and accountability.
Failure to Address Complaints
Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the WHO has not initiated an independent investigation or provided a substantive response to the complaints. This failure to address the complaints undermines the credibility and integrity of the WHO.
Proposed Changes and Their Implications
Process for Handling Allegations
The WHO has proposed a new process for handling and investigating potential allegations against its Directors-General. This process, outlined in the document "Process of Handling and Investigating Potential Allegations Against WHO Directors-General," includes several steps for reporting, reviewing, and investigating allegations. Our organizations strongly object to the proposed changes and advocate for a hearing where the public can offer input, as promised.
Critique of the Proposed Changes
Monopoly on Access to Justice: The proposed changes create a monopoly on access to justice by centralizing decision-making power within a single external investigative entity. This entity is selected based on criteria that may not ensure impartiality or independence.
Lack of Transparency: The process lacks transparency, as the findings and decisions of the external investigative entity are not made public. This prevents stakeholders from holding the WHO accountable for its actions .
Exclusion of Member States: The proposed process limits the involvement of Member States in the investigation, reducing their ability to oversee and ensure the integrity of the process .
Inadequate Appeals Process: The appeals process is limited to the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal, which may not provide adequate recourse for those affected by the WHO's decisions .
Legal Framework for International Responsibility
State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations
Under international law, States can be held responsible for violations of their international obligations, including human rights commitments. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that states can incur international responsibility for promulgating laws that contravene their human rights obligations, even if no specific human rights violation has occurred. This principle supports the argument that the WHO, as an international body, should be held accountable for actions that violate the rights of CSOs, critics and human rights defenders.
Furthermore, the IHR Amendments as written would incur Member State responsibility for promulgating laws that contravene Member States human rights obligations.
Obligations Under International Human Rights Law
The WHO, as part of the United Nations system, is bound by international human rights law, which includes obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. This includes ensuring non-discriminatory access to participation in decision-making processes and protecting the rights to freedom of speech and association. The documented exclusion of CSOs from the GPW14 consultations and censorship of scientists constitutes a breach of these obligations.
GPW14 Risks Outweigh Benefits
RISK DESCRIPTION
Abuse of power in WHO's one sided guidance may lead to the establishment of an environment of acceptance of violation of the cultural right to participate in science, impacting the reputation of the Organization as a United Nations health agency.
GPW14 would fund very unproven and risky open source global data systems, a novel intervention, under who digital health programs. This is too early of a stage to actually agree to, let alone actually implement without inviting severe political risk of a large cybersecurity attack significantly compromising critical HQ, Regional, and/or Country information systems, WHO digital assets or critical data leading to discontinuity of operations, financial losses, legal proceedings, or damaged reputation.
There are open and unanswered fraud and corruption cases that involve the misuse of funds by staff and non-staff in procurement, potentially leading to inability to implement WHO activities in an effective, efficient and economical manner and to major donor and Member States outrage and loss of confidence in WHO's ability to manage funds.
Patently false, fraudulent, misleading or poor data or unavailability of data in health, due to ineffective IHR 43 and "management" of conflicts of interest in major funding which is causing clear political interference in scientific decision making may affect the ability of the WHO and its partners to identify public health needs, respond to them effectively and demonstrate results and impact.
Mistrust in science and in the negative impact of WHO's health activities, with misinformation and disinformation campaigns amplified by social media targeting health, may result in criminal and human rights abuses charges against WHO for directing and controlling the crime of serious undue experimentation by ubiquitous denial of adequate and truthful information (often incorrectly called mis and dis information by WHO and their paid bribed partners such as Google and Trusted News Initiative) required to make informed decisions about WHO recommended EUL or PQ interventions and free choice and reach of WHO's health policies and guidelines in certain communities and in loss of public and Member States trust.
Inability to prevent, detect and manage cases of abuse and harassment of dissenting scientists and critics, for the purpose of creating a scientific monopoly and denying dissenting experts and journalists the right to participate in science, and other forms of misconduct thereby harming people and affects the reputation of the Organization.
Strained WHO workforce, such as the EUL office which UN staff confirms has an email which does not function, no phone # and is understaffed, which ultimately results in reduced organizational performance as well as reputational damage as a United Nations health agency. Ethics department won’t even answer a single complaint, which are rising in numbers and piling up.
Unsustainable financing and the inherent structural defects in WHO rules allowing an unaccountable monopoly able to deny and abuse human rights on a widespread and systematic way, which is a serious breach of international obligations, that no money could ever fix, because the law requires reparations and cessation of the wrongful act of monopolization of science which reforms under the monopolies own rules are still a monopoly that harms health rights rather than protect those same rights as entrusted when formed. Audits in WHO are showing extreme waste. Member States would be safeguarding right to health more efficiently by rejecting GPW14 and not continuing to invest in the failing WHO policies which are scientifically flawed. The Core organizational mandate cannot be implemented, because of key functions, projects or programmes being persistently underfunded, suffering sudden funding interruptions or funding in short-term cycles, with consequent impact on WHO's continuity of operations, the recruitment and retention of skilled staff and effective long-term planning and delivery. The Member States have a duty to protect and this requires not funding a risky failing organization that is not addressing serious charges against their DG and Chief Scientists.
Adapted from Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics (CRE) May 14, 2024
Call to Action
Exit the WHO and Prohibit Private Monopolies in the Public Interest
Given the documented evidence of censorship, exclusion, and monopolistic practices by the WHO, as well as documented unresolved disputes and the need for accountability, the following actions are recommended by Member States:
Exit the WHO: Withdraw membership and funding from the WHO until it addresses the concerns raised and implements comprehensive reforms to uphold transparency, inclusivity, and respect for freedom of expression.
Do not adopt the IHR Amendments: which would violate IHR 55(2)
Prohibit Private Monopolies in Public Health: Initiate legal and regulatory measures to break up perceived monopolies and prevent undue influence of private corporate interests in global health governance and scientific discourse.
Terminate WHO Leadership: Terminate the positions of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chief Scientist Jeremy Farrar. Waive their immunities and require them to apologize for denying the right to participate in science, a recognized cultural right. Prosecute their actions against human rights under the law of international organizations' responsibility.
Demand Accountability: Require the WHO to explain why they censored Free Speech Association and Interest of Justice, thereby failing the obligation to implement transparent and inclusive consultation processes that respect the rights of all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, to participate in decision-making without censorship or marginalization. Demand Accountability: The WHO shall settle the CSO's disputes of a private nature that they are not responding to, ensuring that all concerns are addressed in a timely and transparent manner.
Settle CSO Disputes: The WHO shall settle the CSO's disputes of a private nature that they are not responding to, ensuring that all concerns are addressed in a timely and transparent manner.
Protect Whistleblowers and Dissenting Voices: Establish robust mechanisms to safeguard whistleblowers, journalists, and civil society actors who expose wrongdoing, challenge scientific consensus, or voice dissenting views in the public interest.
Conclusion
The WHO's actions in censoring and excluding civil society voices from its consultations and failing to settle our disputes for so long, despite being urgent and involving human safety, misconduct of the DG Tedros and systematic ongoing widespread violation of our rights to participate in science and health policies represent a serious breach of international principles of transparency, inclusivity, and freedom of expression denying cultural rights. It is imperative that Member States take decisive action to uphold the integrity of global health governance by exiting the WHO, prohibiting private monopolies from unduly influencing public health policies, and protecting the rights of all stakeholders to participate in decision-making without fear of reprisal.
Rather than support the WHO by recklessly approving and funding GPW14 and first round funding, which meets 7 out of 10 of the risks in the May 14, 2024 risk report, please support us victims of WHO’s mismanagement and inefficiency. We are vulnerable, marginalized, censored, excluded and our list of Disputes, including science and ethics disputes is not yet settled.
We also strongly urge you to join the courageous elected officials who are collecting signatures until 11:59pm EDT on June 7, 2024 (throughout the World Health Assembly and WHO Executive Board meetings). See: ReviewtheWHO.org The first batch went to Tedros on Sunday, May 26, 2024, before the start of WHA.
The Member States are the oversight of WHO and cannot justify more funding of this admittedly failing organization that is failing to abide by their own strict procedural rules under IHR Article 55(2) and WHA Rules of Procedure Article IX - Settlement of DisputesSection 31 Settlement of Disputes, which is undoubtably causing harm to civil society, Member States and monopolizing health information and science.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sue the WHO Initiative explainer video:
We REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need more help! We honestly can’t finish this great work and are on life support without more and steady support, which we sadly completely lack. We do have the best case on Earth against WHO to offer you all in return for support, and that is worth it’s weight in gold, because our work is intended to give Humanity a real opportunity to make things right and for countries to EXIT the Beast.
There is also a case pending to annul the IHR 2022 Amendments, and the case to annul the 2024 Amendments was referred to a different court and our Attorney is helping us refile it to take down the 2024 IHR Amendments.
Taking care of BUSINESS. Let’s work together and get our countries to EXIT the WHO!
Sue the WHO Initiative is organized by Interest of Justice - Subscribe below
This case has been going on for quite some time and it’s easy to wonder, will a court ever help us with the WHO’s ethical violations? Yes, because we are the PERSISTENCE! The WHO is going DOWN. Help us take down the Beast!