Share

January 22, 2026 - EXIT WHO The Day the United States Chose to Ignore International Duty Rather Than Fight for WHO Accountability—Now It Falls to Us

United States Just Let WHO Get Away With Serious Breaches (Covid crimes), whilst a new U.S. led global governance Peace Board emerges…

Interest of Justice Won’t Give up like U.S. just did.

Today the US officially withdrew from WHO - THANK GOODNESS —however today’s glorious exit of U.S from the decrepit UN agency, W.H.O., is without U.S. ever using the mandatory legal mechanism to hold them accountable.

Why? Probably because you can’t sue your co-conspirators without exposing yourself.

WHO’s U.S. based Co-perps all went in hiding - the lady in charge of filing the Article 75 “MANDATORY DISPUTE LAWSUIT” IN ICJ AGAINST WHO was “never in her office” and refused to return emails and calls...

Yes, the U.S. refused to work with IoJ or honor all of your signatures to sue the WHO by today. No one here is surprised, are you? At least we asked them to do it & built a record of exhausting remedies. THANK YOU ALL FOR SIGNING AND TAKING ACTION!

Now it falls to citizens like us to fight for justice. This is historic and unprecedented legal actions we are needing to undertake and CRITICAL to our next generations legal structures and ethics of emerging tech & human experimentation. Informed consent matters and the WHO/US experimented on humanity in the name of covid - a mythical “virus”, never isolated or found in reality outside computer modeling!

FRAUDS on humanity need good people to step in and prevent them!

SUPPORT THE IOJ LEGAL FUND TO SUE THE WHO →

What Happened Today, January 22, 2026

The Stunning Convergence of January 22, 2026

Today marks an extraordinary convergence of events that will reshape global governance for decades to come.

Two things occurred simultaneously in the last 24 hours that affect humanity and Americans alike:

1. The United States officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization — ending 78 years of membership. (PS: The WHO fees are still due for US to exit under the WHO rules, and intentionally still not paid by Trump, so there is THAT… We will analyze and be back with analysis on if its really a proper exit, or if WHO really has US by the balls. For now let’s go with screw the WHO -US is OUT)

2. President Trump launched a private “Board of Peace“ in Davos — with himself as chairman for life, $1 billion membership fees he controls, and the stated goal of replacing the United Nations.

WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER OF U.S. STYLE PEACEKEEPING

At the precise moment the United States officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization—ending 78 years of membership—President Trump was in Davos, Switzerland launching a “Board of Peace“ that he declared could “do pretty much whatever we want to do” and might replace the United Nations.

Think about it:

Its actually brilliant because UN is only sovereign due to being the only entity in that space of “monitoring world peace”. LET THAT SINK IN.

*** UN should lose sovereignty in our opinion if the Board of Peace truly does what UN never did…. (It seems to be an impossible lofty to oversee peace, considering human nature is polarized, but OK, at least UN finally isn’t King of the World “peace keepers” and finally now have competition - monopolization of Peace is over… The new order has arrived)

The US withdrawal of WHO became official today—one year after Trump signed the executive order on his inauguration day. The stated reasons? That WHO allegedly “mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic“ and “failed to act independently from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”

But here’s what nobody is talking about:

If those allegations are true—if WHO really did violate its constitutional obligations—the United States had a mandatory legal mechanism to seek accountability. They chose not to use it.

(SIDE NOTE: Blame China is the scam - but if you recall, it was China who honestly said covid isn’t transmissible… Its just a computer model fake virus PCR fraud and it actually does not spread person to person - uhhh so don’t believe the a psy-op in a psy-op folks.)

ARTICLE 75 Is Supposed To Be The Legal Weapon - But America Refused to Use It

The WHO Constitution contains a remarkable provision that virtually no mainstream commentator has mentioned:

Article 75: “Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Constitution which is not settled by negotiation or by the Health Assembly shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the Statute of the Court unless the parties concerned agree on another mode of settlement.”

Source: EJIL Talk - ICJ Jurisdiction over WHO

Note the operative word: “shall be referred.” Not “may be.” Not “could be.” SHALL BE.

This is mandatory, compulsory language creating automatic ICJ jurisdiction for disputes about the interpretation or application of the WHO Constitution.

Share

Subscribe now

What Disputes Did the US Have?

The Trump administration cited multiple grievances that would qualify as disputes under Article 75:

1. COVID-19 information-sharing failures — Alleged violations of IHR Articles 6 & 7 concerning information sharing, which flow directly from WHO Constitution Articles 63 & 64

2. Failure to remain independent — WHO Constitution Article 37 requires the Director-General to be “independent and impartial” and not seek or receive instructions from any government

3. Mishandling of pandemic response — Questions about whether WHO fulfilled its constitutional mandate to “act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work”

4. Inappropriate political influence — The very basis of Trump’s withdrawal executive order

The ICJ Has Confirmed Its Jurisdiction

The International Court of Justice has previously interpreted Article 75 and confirmed it has jurisdiction over disputes concerning interpretation and application of the WHO Constitution. In its 2006 Armed Activities judgment, the Court acknowledged the “preconditions” of Article 75 must be met before ICJ jurisdiction attaches.

The US never even attempted to meet those preconditions. They never initiated negotiations under Article 75. They never brought disputes to the Health Assembly. They simply walked away.

THE GREAT BETRAYAL

Why Didn’t America Sue?

This is the question that should haunt every American concerned about accountability:

If WHO really committed the violations the US government alleges, why didn’t they pursue the mandatory legal remedy?

The answer reveals an uncomfortable truth that accountability cuts both ways.

ICJ proceedings involve discovery. They involve evidence production. They involve cross-examination of conduct on all sides. A lawsuit against WHO for pandemic response failures would inevitably expose:

• What the US government knew, and when

• Communications between US officials and WHO leadership

• American conduct during the critical early weeks

• The full documentary record of who said what to whom

Perhaps the US government calculated that the cost of transparency exceeded the benefit of accountability.

Or perhaps—and this is the darker interpretation—the goal was never accountability. It was replacement and no intent to stop bio experiments.

Meanwhile back at Davos, world leaders took turns admitting the obvious…

DAVOS 2026 World Order Speeches

While the WHO withdrawal was finalized, world leaders gathered at the World Economic Forum delivered a series of obvious and pretty remarkable admissions about the state of global governance.

Here’s what they said:

Mark Carney, Canadian Prime Minister

“Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”

“The old world order is not coming back.“

“The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied—the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving—are greatly diminished.“

“In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact. If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.“

Source: Official Canadian Government Transcript

Larry Fink, BlackRock CEO & WEF Interim Co-Chair

“For many people, this meeting feels out of step with the moment: elites in an age of populism, an established institution in an era of deep institutional distrust. And there’s truth in that critique.“

[On AI]: “The earliest gains are flowing mainly to those who control the models, data, and infrastructure... AI could deepen inequality in advanced economies... Will AI do to white-collar jobs what globalisation did to blue-collar work?“

Source: Euronews Davos Coverage

Emmanuel Macron, French President

“It’s clear that we are reaching a time of instability, of imbalances, both from the security and defense point of view and the economic point of view. Look at the situation where we are. A shift towards autocracy against democracy, more violence, more than 60 wars in 2024, an absolute record...”

“We do believe that we need more growth, we need more stability in this world. But we do prefer respect to bullies. We do prefer science to plotism, and we do prefer rule of law to brutality.“

Source: Élysée Palace Official Transcript

Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President

“The almost unthinkable scale of change is driving European independence... Europe must speed up its push for independence—from security to economy, from defence to democracy. The point is that the world has changed permanently.“

“First principle: full solidarity with Greenland and the kingdom of Denmark. The sovereignty and integrity of the territory is non-negotiable.“

Source: WEF Official Transcript

Javier Milei, Argentine President

“Today, I will demonstrate that free enterprise capitalism is not only more productive, but also that it’s the only just system... When ethical and moral values are abandoned, policies become not only unjust, but also lead to collapse—not only economic collapse, but social collapse as well, to the point of threatening Western civilization itself.“

“The world has begun to wake up. America is experiencing a rebirth of liberty and will once again be the beacon that reignites the West.”

Source: WEF Official Transcript

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President

“Just last year here in Davos, I ended my speech with the words, ‘Europe needs to know how to defend itself.’ A year has passed and nothing has changed. We are still in a situation where I must say the same words.”

“Instead of taking the lead in defending freedom worldwide, especially when America’s focus shifts elsewhere, Europe looks lost trying to convince the U.S. president to change.”

Source: CNBC Coverage

Yanis Varoufakis, Former Greek Finance Minister

“What we see is the geopolitical version of Steve Bannon’s infamous policy or tactic of flooding the zone... Behind this tactic, we have the Steve Bannon strategy of making the rest of us, the rest of the world, sink into a black hole of uncertainty.”

“The whole point of what [Trump is] doing is essentially to create an unholy alliance of big business. This is what the tech lords—Peter Thiel, various members of this cabal—this is a new ideology, the ideology of corporations resembling, if you want to go back centuries ago, the Dutch East India Company or the British East India Company.“

“[The Board of Peace] is one of the most despicable developments in my lifetime... a private company, headed by [Trump] for life, will annex the occupied land of Gaza.”

“Trump has all his work done for him by placid European centrists who went along with the policy of trashing international law and creating the circumstances for him to create his private company and say, ‘Right, I’m taking over the world.’”

Source: Democracy Now Interview

Alex Karp, Palantir CEO

“[AI] will destroy humanities jobs. You went to an elite school, and you studied philosophy—I’ll use myself as an example—hopefully, you have some other skill, that one is going to be hard to market.”

Source: Euronews

Børge Brende, WEF President

“We are most worried about major escalations of wars. That can kill global growth.“

Source: Euronews

THE BOARD OF PEACE

Trump’s Private UN Replacement

While announcing America’s abandonment of WHO accountability mechanisms, Trump simultaneously unveiled his alternative to the United Nations—a private corporation called the “Board of Peace” with extraordinary characteristics:

Structure:

• Trump serves as chairman for life

• He may adopt resolutions or initiatives without consulting the board

• Permanent membership costs $1 billion paid into a fund Trump controls

• The 11-page charter never mentions Gaza despite being sold as Gaza reconstruction

Trump’s Own Words:

“Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do.“

“I think the Board of Peace will be the most prestigious board ever, and it’s going to get a lot of work done that the United Nations should have done.“

“The United Nations never helped me [as a reason for creating the Board]”

Source: PBS News

International Response:

France warned the board could “replace the UN as the world’s main venue for conflict resolution.” The UK refused to sign over concerns about Putin’s potential involvement. Belgium said it did NOT sign despite being initially listed by the White House.

Countries that DID sign: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.

WHY INTEREST OF JUSTICE’S WORK MATTERS MORE THAN EVER

Share

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a monthly donor or paid subscriber.

While the United States government abandoned its legal tools, Interest of Justice has been doing the work America (and all WHO Member States) refused to do.

Five Constitutional Chamber Victories in Costa Rica

Between 2021-2025, Interest of Justice achieved five consecutive victories in Costa Rica’s Constitutional Chamber, forcing government officials to make extraordinary admissions:

• COVID products were imported under Article 117 biomedical research laws—not as vaccines

• Products were classified as “investigational”—meaning experimental

• The legal definition of “vaccine” was never satisfied

• Informed consent for biomedical research was required but never properly obtained

These admissions go to the heart of the global fraud: products sold as “vaccines” were actually experimental gene therapies imported under research protocols while the public was told they were proven, safe, and fully approved.

The WHO Contempt Case

Interest of Justice filed against WHO in Costa Rica in an unprecedented Nuremberg Hearing, and when Costa Rica and WHO ignored direct court orders for eight months, we pursued contempt proceedings (in process now). This is one of the only documented instances of any organization attempting to hold WHO legally accountable through judicial process anywhere in the world.

The US government—with infinitely more resources, standing, and leverage—chose to walk away without ever invoking Article 75.

That contrast is everything.

The US Had a Legal Duty to Sue WHO. They Refused.

Here’s what nobody is telling you:

WHO Constitution Article 75 states that disputes about WHO’s conduct “shall be referred to the International Court of Justice.”

Not “may be.” SHALL BE. It’s mandatory.

Source: EJIL Talk - ICJ Jurisdiction

The United States claimed WHO:

• Mishandled COVID-19

• Failed to share critical information

• Acted under inappropriate political influence

• Violated its constitutional obligations

If those allegations are true, the US had every right—and arguably a duty—to sue WHO at the International Court of Justice.

They didn’t.

They walked away instead.

Why?

You Can’t Sue Your Co-Conspirators Without Exposing Yourself

The answer is obvious when you think about it:

ICJ proceedings involve discovery. Evidence production. Cross-examination. Full documentary records.

A lawsuit against WHO for pandemic response failures would expose what US officials knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

The US government isn’t letting WHO “get away with it” out of incompetence.

They’re letting WHO get away with it because they’re co-perpetrators in the largest crime against humanity in modern history.

Experimental gene therapy products—never meeting the legal definition of vaccines—were injected into billions of people worldwide without proper informed consent. These products are deadly to some humans. Exposed. Documented. Proven.

And rather than hold anyone accountable, the US government simply quit WHO and started a private club with $1 billion entry fees.

What the World Leaders Said at Davos

While the US abandoned accountability, here’s what they were saying in Switzerland:

Mark Carney, Canadian Prime Minister:

“The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied—the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving—are greatly diminished.“

Larry Fink, BlackRock CEO & WEF Co-Chair:

“For many people, this meeting feels out of step with the moment: elites in an age of populism, an established institution in an era of deep institutional distrust. And there’s truth in that critique.“

Emmanuel Macron, French President:

“A shift towards autocracy against democracy, more violence, more than 60 wars in 2024, an absolute record... We do prefer respect to bullies. We do prefer science to plotism, and we do prefer rule of law to brutality.“

Ursula von der Leyen, EU Commission President:

“The world has changed permanently.“

Yanis Varoufakis, Former Greek Finance Minister:

“[The Board of Peace is] one of the most despicable developments in my lifetime... a private company, headed by [Trump] for life, will annex occupied land.”

“Trump has all his work done for him by placid European centrists who went along with the policy of trashing international law.”

Donald Trump, on his Board of Peace:

“Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much whatever we want to do.“

“The United Nations never helped me.“

We Do Not Accept This

Interest of Justice does not accept:

• Member states withdrawing from WHO without holding it accountable

• Governments refusing to invoke Article 75 dispute mechanisms

• Experimental products being injected into humans without informed consent

• The largest crime against humanity going unpunished

We are fighting back.

Interest of Justice Has Direct Disputes With WHO

This isn’t abstract. Interest of Justice—as a WHO-credentialed stakeholder organization—has direct, documented disputes with WHO:

PCR Testing Fraud

WHO promoted PCR testing protocols that were scientifically fraudulent—cycle thresholds set so high they guaranteed false positives, creating the “casedemic” that justified lockdowns, mandates, and emergency powers worldwide. This wasn’t error. It was fraud.

Non-Vaccine Bioagent Experiments

WHO promoted experimental gene therapy products as “vaccines” when they never met the legal or scientific definition. These are bioagents. They were imported under biomedical research statutes (Article 117 in Costa Rica—we proved it in court). WHO helped facilitate the largest unconsented medical experiment in human history.

IHR Amendments Censoring Civil Society

The International Health Regulations amendments WHO is pushing would censor civil society organizations like Interest of Justice. They want to silence the very organizations holding them accountable. We have stakeholder status. We have a seat at the table. And they’re trying to remove our voice.

These are OUR disputes. Direct. Personal. Documented.

Article 75 exists precisely for disputes like these. The US refused to use it. We won’t.

Two Critical Cases: One Against USA, One Against WHO

Interest of Justice attorneys are filing two critical legal cases:

1. Against the United States

A mandamus action challenging the void authority behind Emergency Use Authorization products. These were never properly authorized. The legal basis was fraudulent. The products don’t meet the definition of vaccines—they’re experimental gene therapies that were imported under biomedical research laws.

2. Against WHO

A commercial case holding WHO accountable for its constitutional violations—including the PCR fraud, the non-vaccine bioagent experiments, and the IHR amendments designed to silence organizations like us. The US won’t invoke Article 75? Fine. We will pursue every legal avenue available to force accountability.

The goal is simple: STOP THE DEADLY EXPERIMENTAL SHOTS.

No more injecting humans with products that kill some of them. No more “informed consent” that informs no one and consents to nothing. No more Nuremberg Code violations hidden behind emergency declarations.

Share

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a monthly donor or paid subscriber.

The Nuremberg Hearing Project Is Heating Up

Interest of Justice conducted formal Nuremberg hearings on November 9 and 11, 2024, obtaining recorded government testimony about vaccine safety concerns and Nuremberg Code violations.

We have expert witness declarations from:

• Dr. Michael Yeadon (former Pfizer VP)

• Dr. Janci Lindsay

• Sasha Latypova

• Dr. Leisha Martin

We have five Constitutional Chamber victories in Costa Rica forcing government admissions that COVID products were imported as “investigational” under Article 117 biomedical research laws—not as vaccines.

We have WHO on record ignoring direct court orders for eight months.

The evidence is overwhelming. The documentation is complete. The legal framework is solid.

Maybe Argentina Will Do What the US Refused to Do?

Argentina signed Trump’s Board of Peace today.

But Argentina is also led by Javier Milei, who told Davos:

“When ethical and moral values are abandoned, policies become not only unjust, but also lead to collapse—not only economic collapse, but social collapse as well, to the point of threatening Western civilization itself.“

Perhaps Argentina—or another member state willing to stand for justice—will do what the United States refused:

Invoke Article 75 and refer WHO disputes to the International Court of Justice.

The US abandoned its duty. But 193 other member states remain. The mechanism still exists. The violations still occurred. The victims still deserve justice.

We will continue to pressure Argentina and the remaining Member States of WHO.

THE GREAT FLAKE OUT

The United States had the legal tools to hold WHO accountable.

Article 75 of the WHO Constitution required disputes to be referred to the International Court of Justice.

The US refused to use it.

Why? Because accountability cuts both ways. You can’t sue your co-conspirators without exposing your own crimes.

So the US just... left. Walked away. Started a private club in Davos with billion-dollar memberships and Trump as chairman for life.

Interest of Justice refuses to accept this.

We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with WHO stakeholder status and certified diplomatic credentials. We have five Constitutional Chamber victories. We have expert witnesses. We have documented evidence. We have 5 years of fighting this fight and just recieved the confessions of experimentation to win. We have world class attorneys ready to file.

You Can Be A Hero By Helping to Support the IOJ Legal Fund Now!

The US government won’t sue WHO because they’re co-perpetrators.

But we will with YOUR help.

Interest of Justice is filing and preparing:

• WHO commercial case filing in US to waive WHO immunity for experiments (needs Attorney fees IMMEDIATELY and then filed)

• US mandamus action on void authority (just filed to stop the shots)

• International filings across ICC, IACHR, and national courts

• Continued Nuremberg hearing documentation

This is humanity’s fight for accountability - its a long game and critical.

The shots are deadly to some humans. There was no informed consent. The Nuremberg Code was violated. And the governments that were supposed to protect us are walking away.

SUPPORT INTEREST OF JUSTICE LEGAL FUND FOR HUMANITY→

It’s the right thing to do—even if the US wants to let WHO get away with it.

Especially because the US wants to let them get away with it.

Interest of Justice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to use of law to uplift humanity and create positive soul-utions to the worlds biggest ethical breaches, using negotiations and certified diplomatic credentials first, lawsuits when needed, like NOW.

The old order is collapsing. What rises in its place is up to us.

Place your ORDER for the New World Order dear readers and loved ones. The future is OURS TO CREATE!

Share this article. Support the legal fund. Don’t let them get away with it!

STAY THE COURSE - SUPPORT IOJ’S IMPORTANT LEGAL ACTIONS TODAY!

Share

Share

Subscribe now

Today September 27, 2025, For the first time in history, WHO, an international organization is being held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with national legal proceedings and court orders.

READ FULL COURT MOTION IOJ JUST FILED BELOW

WHO Sued for Contempt! When International Organizations Ghost Court Orders We Must SUE THEM!

IoJ just filed something unprecedented in legal history: a contempt case against the World Health Organization for refusing to answer a court order.

Let that sink in. An international organization simply ignored a national court’s direct order to provide information about their operations in our country.

WE JUST SUED THE WHO FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT - DISOBEDIENCE TO THE JUDGES ORDER! You can help us kick WHO’s ass in this UNPRECEDENTED case!

Help Support IoJ Suing WHO!

What’s this all about IoJ?

How can WHO be sued? Isn’t WHO “immune”?

NO, WHO HAS DUTIES & WE NEED THE COURT ORDER ANSWERED BY WHO.

The court ordered WHO to produce documents about indigenous population data from their experimental programs, import records showing how many products were classified as “experimental,” and authorization documents for running medical experiments disguised as public health programs.

Instead of complying with the court order like any other entity would be required to do, WHO chose to ghost the entire legal proceeding.

When international organizations can simply ignore national court orders, constitutional government ceases to exist. If WHO doesn’t have to answer to courts, what other “global health” experiments can they run without any accountability?

This isn’t about vaccines or medical policy. This is about whether international organizations operate above the law in sovereign nations.

For the first time in history (we think - correct us if we are wrong), an international organization is being held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with national legal proceedings. This case establishes that national courts have authority over international organizations operating in their territory, that court orders apply to everyone including WHO, and that international immunity doesn’t extend to ignoring judicial proceedings.

We’ve posted the complete filing on our Sue the WhO Substack below so you can read exactly what we submitted to the court. No speculation, no interpretation - just the legal documents themselves.

International organizations have operated for decades believing they’re above national law. That stops now.

When courts issue orders, compliance isn’t optional - not even for the World Health Organization.

Stay tuned for the legal documents they never expected you to find.

READ FULL MOTION FOR CONTEMPT HERE ON SUE THE WHO SUBSTACK:

For those deep divers who want to read the whole court filing with major details.

Sue the WHO Legal Initiative (Idiot's Guide to EXIT the WHO)

WHO Sued After Defying Court ORDER For Covid Vaccine Experiments Information - MOTION FOR Contempt of Court!

IoJ Files Landmark Case Against PAHO/WHO for Willful Non-Compliance and Pattern of Systematic Contempt of Court ORDERS…

Read more

7 months ago · 5 likes · 3 comments · Interest of Justice

Support constitutional accountability! Help fund the legal team that’s making international organizations answer to national courts for the first time in history.

Help Support IoJ Suing WHO!

FOLKS - THIS IS JUST ONE LAWSUIT

WE NEED YOUR HELP RIGHT NOW TO FILE THE GLOBAL CASE THAT CAN STOP THE WHO “VAX” EXPERIMENTS - WE ARE SO CLOSE! Donate To The Legal Fundraiser!

WE CAN BEAT WHO WITH YOUR HELP!

Help Support IoJ Suing WHO!

Share

Related reading about why we had to buckle up to sue the WHO today:

MORE INFO COMING NEXT WEEK - STAY TUNED - NUREMBERG HEARING PROJECT IS LAUNCHING IN A HUGE WAY. TYRANTS BE DAMMNED!

Share

All Donations from this post go to the Sue the WHO fund! Our Attorney Needs Paid To Take On Two Larger Cases - Yes our cases DIRECTLY affect WHO & can stop mRNA "vaccine” experiments.

I Will Help IoJ Stop WHO

PABS Negotiations Continue The WHO Pandemic and Resource Extraction Scheme Stumbles Forward

WHO's Timeline to Control Global Biological Resources Faces Delays

The second round of WHO's Intergovernmental Working Group negotiations concluded September 19th in Geneva, and the results confirm what Interest of Justice has been documenting throughout this process. After more than three years of pandemic treaty negotiations and now two formal IGWG meetings specifically focused on the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system, international negotiators remain unable to agree on fundamental definitions and operational frameworks.

The meetings that just ended were originally scheduled as the second of eight planned sessions leading to the May 2026 World Health Assembly, where WHO hopes to finalize the PABS annex that would complete their pandemic agreement. Without this annex, the main treaty cannot be opened for signature by member states. Industry observers have noted that even the May 2026 timeline appears optimistic given the scope of unresolved issues, with some predicting completion may not occur until 2027 or 2028.

Interest of Justice would like to note that our organization submitted detailed legal analysis in 2023 documenting how the proposed PABS framework mirrors the controversial Indonesia situation from 2007. In that case, Indonesia shared H5N1 bird flu samples with WHO's global laboratory network, only to discover that wealthy countries had secured advance purchase agreements for all vaccines developed from their biological materials. Indonesia's response was to cease all sample sharing until benefit-sharing arrangements could be established. That was the beginning of the end (of sanity), haha….

The current PABS negotiations seek to institutionalize what amounts to a biological resource extraction system. Countries would be required to immediately share pathogen samples and genetic sequence data during WHO-declared emergencies, while pharmaceutical manufacturers would retain rights to develop products from these materials. The proposed benefit-sharing mechanism requires companies to make available twenty percent of their production to WHO for distribution at "affordable" prices determined through WHO negotiations.

Our Costa Rica Constitutional Court case, which established May 6, 2025 that WHO provided zero safety data to justify their vaccine recommendations, raises fundamental questions about the scientific basis for these elaborate resource-sharing arrangements. If WHO cannot provide basic evidence supporting their core recommendations, what confidence should countries have in surrendering biological sovereignty to the same institution?

The September PABS meetings revealed continued disagreement over basic definitions, including what constitutes "pathogens with pandemic potential" and how to trigger mandatory sharing requirements.

Negotiators remain divided on governance structures, with developing countries seeking guaranteed access to medical countermeasures while developed nations and pharmaceutical companies advocate for more flexible arrangements that protect intellectual property rights.

Dr. Mike Yeadon and quite a few other well credentialed scientists who question the fundamental assumptions underlying pandemic preparedness policies have raised important concerns about the lack of proof of alleged virus transmission and isolation that remain unaddressed in these negotiations.

The entire PABS framework assumes that rapid pathogen sharing will enable faster development of effective medical countermeasures, yet this assumption relies on virology claims that some researchers argue lack proper scientific foundation. Our PCR fraud case, which WHO has referred back to member states for investigation, challenges the diagnostic methods that enabled the declaration of the pandemic in the first place.

The timeline established by WHO requires six additional IGWG meetings between now and March 2026, including sessions scheduled for October, November, December, February, and March. Interest of Justice will be there as usual to protest each meeting, ensuring your voice is heard. We want to thank all our readers who sent messages and supported our efforts during this week's negotiations, including signing and sharing our petition forms that were delivered to negotiators.

Each meeting represents significant expense for member states and WHO's budget, yet substantive progress remains limited. The February 2026 session is intended as the final negotiating round before the March meeting that would prepare the final text for World Health Assembly consideration.

Pharmaceutical industry representatives attending the September meetings emphasized the need for clear definitions and workable systems that preserve innovation incentives. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations submitted statements expressing concern about overly broad scope and unclear obligations that could undermine medical countermeasure development. Their position reflects underlying tensions between public health access goals and commercial interests that have complicated these negotiations from the beginning.

The absence of the United States from these negotiations following their WHO withdrawal creates additional complexity. American pharmaceutical companies and research institutions represent significant portions of global medical countermeasure development capacity, yet the U.S. government has declined to participate in arrangements that would require sharing biological resources or production capacity during emergencies.

Countries that abstained from the May 2025 pandemic agreement adoption, including Bulgaria, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Netherlands, Paraguay, Poland, Russia, and Slovakia, cited various concerns ranging from sovereignty issues to incomplete benefit-sharing arrangements. Several of these countries indicated that PABS system details would influence their eventual decisions about treaty ratification.

Our legal team continues monitoring these developments while pursuing accountability through national courts where evidence standards remain applicable. The contrast between WHO's evidence-free policy recommendations and the detailed resource-sharing arrangements they seek to establish raises questions about institutional priorities and capabilities. Courts in multiple jurisdictions are increasingly willing to examine the scientific basis for health emergency measures, which may ultimately prove more significant than whatever agreements emerge from Geneva negotiations.

The October informal meetings and November formal session will likely determine whether negotiators can resolve fundamental disagreements about definitions and governance structures. Without such resolution, the ambitious timeline for May 2026 completion appears increasingly unrealistic. We hope so.

Interest of Justice will continue documenting these proceedings while pursuing legal remedies that address the underlying lack of scientific evidence supporting WHO's expanding authority claims.

The resource extraction implications of PABS remain concerning regardless of implementation timeline. Any system that requires countries to immediately surrender biological materials while paying market prices for products developed from their own resources deserves careful scrutiny. The Indonesia precedent suggests that countries maintaining sovereignty over their biological resources may ultimately achieve better outcomes than those accepting international frameworks designed primarily to benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers and international bureaucracies.

Interest of Justice has been one of the few organizations to attend and protest every single pandemic treaty meeting since the beginning April 2022.

From our base in Costa Rica, we have filed multiple ethics complaints against WHO, successfully got our complaint referred to national authorities, and just posted a copy of yesterday's hearing against the organization.

We are pursuing this all the way to prove that WHO gave wrong advice to countries and that both WHO and national governments violated our rights based on that flawed guidance.

We need your help to beat them before they can further indoctrinate countries with their evidence-free policies. Your donations enable us to continue protesting these meetings, filing REAL and CRITICAL legal challenges, and holding both WHO and complicit governments accountable while working to create a new health system for the future without global overlordship.

You can make a real difference to support our fight to hold them accountable & build health freedom at SuetheWHO.org/donate. Its a long term battle, & we intend to stay the course to win back health freedom for humanity. Out with the WHO and in with the NEW!

I Will Help IoJ Stop WHO

If you haven’t signed the demand to STOP PABS yet, please do & also share far and wide!

https://suethewho.org/stoppabs

RELATED READING:

Share

Subscribe now

Donate To Sue WHO

The Propaganda Machine That Crumbled When a Judge Demanded Evidence

As delegates from 194 nations wrap up their secret PABS negotiations in Geneva tomorrow—meetings deliberately hidden from public scrutiny—a devastating court ruling from Costa Rica exposes the rotten foundation upon which they're building their global health dictatorship. What happened when a judge demanded WHO provide evidence for their targeting of the world's most vulnerable populations should send shockwaves through every government preparing to sign away their sovereignty.

The evidence is damning, undeniable, and sits in WHO's own publications: they openly admit to "targeting intellectually disabled and indigenous populations" for experimental medical interventions. Yet when Costa Rica's Constitutional Chamber—equivalent to their Supreme Court—ordered the government to produce WHO's safety data supporting these targeting strategies, something unprecedented happened. WHO ghosted them. Complete radio silence. Not even the courtesy of a refusal.

For years, WHO has published materials acknowledging their focused campaigns on indigenous communities and intellectually disabled populations. These aren't conspiracy theories—they're WHO's own admissions, published on their platforms, describing systematic targeting of populations who face language barriers, cognitive challenges, and historical medical trauma that makes true informed consent nearly impossible.

But here's where the propaganda machine broke down FAST. When a real court with actual rules of evidence demanded WHO produce the safety studies justifying this targeting, the global health authority had nothing. Not a single study. Not even an attempt at explanation. Just deafening silence that spoke louder than any admission.

The Costa Rican government, confident in their international backing, had assured their Constitutional Chamber they would provide WHO's supporting documentation. Health Minister officials testified that these were experimental interventions under Emergency Use Listings (EUL)—products never intended for mass deployment but somehow pushed onto entire populations through legal loopholes that violate member states' own laws.

When the court order came down demanding evidence, the Minister of Health turned to WHO for help. They needed studies. They needed data. They needed something, anything, to justify policies affecting their most vulnerable citizens. WHO's response was complete abandonment. They left their member state hanging in court, with no defense and no evidence.

THE EUL SCAM - FROM CIRCUMCISION TOOLS TO GLOBAL MANDATES

Emergency Use Listings were originally designed for genuinely rare, experimental tools—circumcision instruments, highly specialized diagnostic equipment—not for mass global deployment of novel gene therapies. The EUL system was never meant to circumvent normal safety requirements for products given to billions of people. It was a narrow exception for genuine emergencies affecting small populations.

But WHO and their pharmaceutical partners discovered something lucrative: EUL products could be deployed globally while maintaining the legal fiction that they were "experimental" and therefore exempt from normal liability standards. They could target vulnerable populations—indigenous communities, intellectually disabled individuals, pregnant women—under the guise of emergency necessity while avoiding the rigorous safety testing required for mass-use products.

Our FOIA requests with the Department of Defense and appeals with DOD/HHS revealed something shocking: they have no Congressional authority over these products. When FDA became a strict regulatory authority in 2007, their functional authority over emergency programs was transferred to WHO. Now that voided authority is being used to justify massive international treaties that would give WHO unprecedented power over member nations' health policies.

This creates an impossible legal paradox that products too experimental for normal approval somehow become safe enough for global mandates affecting the most vulnerable populations. It's a regulatory shell game that collapses the moment a court demands actual evidence. Somehow it keeps being funded and expanding.

As this article publishes, WHO delegates are concluding their September 15-19 PABS negotiations in Geneva—meetings deliberately scheduled to avoid public scrutiny and conducted with minimal transparency. The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system isn't about pandemic preparedness; it's about creating a global funding mechanism that turns vaccine deployment into a profitable international business model for WHO & their Member States.

Under PABS, pharmaceutical manufacturers would be required to provide 20% of their "real time production" to WHO for global distribution. This sounds humanitarian until you understand the mechanism that countries who participate in pathogen sharing—meaning they provide biological samples for vaccine development—become obligated to purchase the resulting products. It's a global pyramid scheme and business prospectus disguised as pandemic preparedness.

Indigenous communities and developing nations become both the source for alleged pathogen collection AND the mandatory market for the resulting products. Their reported pathogens—whether real, computer-simulated, or entirely fabricated—are collected and presented to the world as justification for vaccine development, their populations are targeted for deployment, and their governments are contractually obligated to purchase products supposedly developed from their own biological resources.

The most revealing aspect of this entire system is WHO's standard legal disclaimer, found throughout their publications:

Read that again. WHO provides recommendations while disclaiming all liability, yet simultaneously pushes for these same recommendations to become legally binding on nations through the Pandemic Treaty and IHR amendments—the very agreements we're currently fighting in court.

No one would even buy a toaster with a warrantee so bad, but it is true that they want global authority to make their recommendations mandatory while accepting zero responsibility for the consequences. How can any rational government sign agreements with an organization that explicitly refuses accountability for their own advice while demanding the power to make that advice legally enforceable?

Costa Rica's Constitutional Chamber recognized this contradiction and ruled accordingly. When WHO couldn't provide evidence supporting their targeting strategies, the court declared the entire framework a violation of constitutional rights. Yet despite this victory, despite WHO's abandonment under court order, Costa Rica's government continues racing toward PABS adoption.

WATCH TOMORROW - THE EVIDENCE THEY COULDN'T DEFEND

Tomorrow at 11:11 AM Eastern, Interest of Justice will release their Nuremberg Hearing, presenting the same evidence that was shown to the President's office and Health Ministry before they lost in court. The timing isn't coincidental—as WHO concludes their secret PABS negotiations, the evidence of their constitutional violations and abandonment of member states under legal pressure will be presented to the world.

The case that began in Costa Rica is now making its way to international human rights courts and Nuremberg proceedings. Every government official attending those Geneva meetings should understand: the evidence being compiled doesn't just document policy failures, it documents systematic targeting of vulnerable populations without scientific justification—precisely the type of crimes against humanity that Nuremberg principles were designed to address.

They admitted targeting the most vulnerable. They couldn't provide evidence when challenged. They abandoned their member states under court order.

As delegates in Geneva put the finishing touches on agreements designed to make WHO's authority permanent and legally binding, the Costa Rica precedent offers a different path: demand evidence, challenge authority, hold them accountable in real courts with real rules.

The indigenous peoples of Costa Rica deserve better than being experimental subjects in WHO's global health theater. So do the intellectually disabled populations they admit to targeting. So do the pregnant women and children who were given products that WHO couldn't defend in court.

Tomorrow's hearing will present the evidence. The international courts are waiting. The only question remaining is whether enough people will fund the fight to see justice delivered.

Visit Interest of Justice Substack for the complete timeline and evidence of WHO's targeting admissions.

Because when they target the most vulnerable and can't provide evidence when challenged, that's not healthcare—that's a crime against humanity.

HELP US REACH OUR GOAL!!!

We're up to $2,700+ in donations—$2,700+! You might think that's Trump change, but you'd be surprised how quickly it adds up when people keep supporting this fight. We have no shame in this game and we're not stopping until our lawyer gets paid what he deserves.

Here's what most people don't realize - we watched a professor on YouTube explain that no court has ever been asked whether an international organization would be legally responsible for damages caused by their binding recommendations. Think about that—they're about to create treaties that bind countries to pandemic measures from an organization with a legal disclaimer literally refusing all liability for recommendations to their Member Countries, and this fundamental question has never been answered by a judge.

Our case isn't just about one issue—it's addressing questions that could change the entire landscape for informed consent worldwide. What are the actual limits of WHO's authority? What does it legally take to call a pandemic? How do we enforce the Siracusa Principles that are supposed to limit emergency powers? These principles exist on paper but have no enforcement mechanism, and the standards for declaring pandemics remain dangerously vague.

Our criminal lawyer isn't just handling one problem—he's tackling unprecedented legal questions that affect all 8 billion people on this planet. If we can establish judicial precedent on international organization liability, define the legal limits of health authority, and create enforceable standards for pandemic declarations, we could prevent future medical authoritarianism before it starts.

These might sound like abstract legal concepts, but they're the foundation of everything. Without clear limits and accountability, any organization can declare any emergency and impose any measures with zero consequences. We have the opportunity to change that, but only if this case gets the resources it deserves.

Our lawyer should have payment by the first of the month to pursue these groundbreaking questions through to the international court for human rights and to Universal Jurisdiction in all countries. He wants us to decide now, and yes we can make him wait just from inability to commit promptly, but we think it can and should be done quickly. We know it sounds ambitious—maybe even crazy—but someone has to ask these questions in a real court with binding legal authority. Why not us? Why not now?

Interest of Justice has compiled comprehensive evidence of WHO's targeting strategies and their failure to provide supporting data under court order. The Nuremberg Hearing premieres tomorrow September 19, 2025 at 11:11 AM Eastern, presenting this evidence in a format suitable for international criminal proceedings. Support our work at www.nuremberghearing.org/donate to ensure this case reaches its conclusion in international courts and the necessary resources to succeed!

Donate To Nuremberg Hearing Project

From Dr. Mike Yeadon - PRIVATE Nuremberg Hearing Releases Tomorrow - Vice President/Health Minister Requested The Hearing:

IoJ’s fearless Chief Scientist Dr. Yeadon has come to quite of few of our court cases and Presidential Hearings since 2021. We are losing count here guys - lol

Tomorrow, September 19, 2025, watch the PRIVATE Nuremberg Hearing and expert evidence against WHO EUL products. This hearing is the worlds ONLY hearing where WHO THEMSELVES referred countries our IoJ dispute to stop covid [non]vaccines globally - it was this Hearing which was against the government and WHO, that is now making it’s way to international tribunals. NurembergHearing.org starts with this case.

Telegram: https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/3421

In Costa Rica, last year if I recall correctly, several expert witnesses including toxicologist Dr Jancey Lindsay, Sasha Latypova and me spoke with a senior judge in one of the nations superior court. I don’t remember all the details except it was made clear to us that the President & the Vice President of Costa Rica had specifically requested that the court hear from us. It’s so long ago that I nothing more than vague memories of the events.

As you may know, after a long delay, the request for a full hearing was denied.

However, a little later, advocates Interest of Justice did secure a real victory over the government. They demanded under their national FOI rights access to the clinical & preclinical safety records for the novel injected product upon which their assurances to their own citizens were based and by which means their national drug regulatory agency gave it the injections it the thumbs up.

The court ruled that the FOI request was valid and binding uoon the government. I believe it was a constitutional court or at least the court had constitutional authority over the government.

The court-ordered deadline came & went: no response from the Ministry of Health or from the offices of the government itself.

The court ruled that the ordered disclosure of the safety package under the FOI request having not been complied with, the government had indirectly confirmed that it simply didn’t have any safety information and had therefore intentionally misled the public, a very serious matter.

I don’t what happened next but I know the hearing was recorded. It’s going to be publicised starting tomorrow.

Best wishes,

Mike

Watch the Nuremberg Hearing Against WHO Covid Vaccine Tomorrow noon EST!

Donate To Nuremberg Hearing Project

If you haven’t signed the demand going straight to the WHO International Public Servants, please do and share far and wide for the final day of their meetup!

https://suethewho.org/stoppabs

Donate To Sue WHO

Share

Leave a comment

Other related articles:

Dr. Tedros is at it again!

WHO PABS Framework Negotiations Enter Critical Final Phase - THE WHO & YOUR COUNTRIES ARE USHERING IN THE TYRANNICAL PANDEMIC TREATY - BUT ONLY IF PABS ANNEX IS AGREED THIS WEEK!

WHO PABS Framework Negotiations Enter Critical Final Phase"Without the Annex, the Pandemic Agreement will not be complete," Dr. Tedros stated, congratulating member states on the International Health Regulations amendments that will enter into force on September 19, 2025 – the final day of these negotiation

Share

We are getting so much closer to covid WHO justice but still need YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE TO KICK WHO’S ASS - LETS DO THIS GUYS - NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH IS DOING THIS WORK OR BUILT THE WINNING RECORD LIKE IOJ, SO THANKS FOR THE FAITH AND SUPPORT TO CARRY THE MISSION THROUGH!

Donate to Sue the WHO Initiative

YOU can help us push this past the goal post to make real positive impact! FAITH!

WHO PABS Negotiations - Behind Closed Doors As Usual

If you're wondering what PABS is and why it matters, here's the bottom line - it's a money-making scheme disguised as pandemic preparedness. Countries share their pathogen samples with WHO for "the greater good," then pharmaceutical companies use that biological information to develop products and rake in billions while the countries that provided the samples get scraps. As researcher and fellow activist James Roguski puts it, this isn't about health - "it's a business plan to redistribute wealth on a global scale" offering "a financial windfall for Big Pharma." It's basically biopiracy with a humanitarian marketing campaign. The whole thing incentivizes pathogen hunting and turns dangerous biological materials into profitable commodities. Why should any country hand over their biological resources so global corporations can get rich?

Read our full analysis here of why this entire framework violates national sovereignty and creates perverse incentives for manufactured health emergencies.

The WHO's second day of PABS negotiations is underway in Geneva, and surprise - the most important discussions are happening where you can't see them. While WHO announced these September 15-19 talks would be livestreamed, the real negotiations are behind closed doors where 194 member states are trying to salvage their Pandemic Agreement.

Here's what's actually happening. The Pandemic Agreement passed in May 2025, but it's worthless without this PABS annex they're negotiating now. No PABS means no signatures, no ratifications, no functioning treaty. Even if they finish the annex, they need 60 countries to ratify before it enters into force. They've got until May 2026 to get this done or the entire three-year project becomes a very expensive failure.

The fight is exactly what you'd expect. Developing countries demand pharmaceutical companies provide 20% of their pandemic products - 10% donated, 10% at affordable prices - plus technology transfer and manufacturing licenses. The pharmaceutical companies and their government allies want voluntary arrangements that preserve their control and profit margins. China added a clever twist by proposing that only companies from treaty-signatory countries get access to pathogen data, which would exclude U.S. manufacturers since America withdrew from WHO in January.

The U.S. withdrawal continues creating problems for the holdouts trying to push it through. Trump thankfully pulled America out of WHO, and now Health and Human Services announced they're ending mRNA vaccine development as of August 27, 2025. Meanwhile, WHO is forced into implementing major budget cuts, reducing from 10 divisions to 5 and cutting staff from 80 directors to 30 while trying to negotiate this global health treaty.

The African Group, representing 54 countries under Zambia's Ephraim Mwepya Shitima, keeps getting shut out of key decisions despite being the continent that shares the most pathogen samples. European nations are trying to play peacemaker while civil society organizations complain about the secrecy. Knowledge Ecology International pointed out that WHO negotiations have "far greater secrecy compared to World Intellectual Property Organization conferences."

The technical problems are substantial. They're trying to make PABS work with existing frameworks like the Nagoya Protocol while respecting Article 22.2 of their own agreement, which says WHO cannot override national laws or mandate specific actions.

The WHO wants global authority without having actual authority - classic international bureaucracy.

The timeline is impossible. Seven months to solve what couldn't be resolved in three years, using a consensus system where any single country can block everything. Diplomatic sources are "politely skeptical," which means they think this is headed for failure.

Ambassador Tovar da Silva Nunes of Brazil and Matthew Harpur of the UK are co-chairing these negotiations through Friday, September 19. The International Health Regulations amendments take effect on that same day, which is either perfect timing or perfect irony depending on your perspective.

The real issue isn't whether they'll reach agreement. The real issue is that this entire process demonstrates why people don't trust global governance. The U.S. walked away, civil society like us little guys gets locked out, important negotiations happen in secret, and WHO promises to make the world "safer from future pandemics" while creating a textbook example of how international bureaucracies lose legitimacy.

We'll keep monitoring this process and holding them accountable through our ongoing legal disputes with WHO and public reporting. Interest of Justice has been opposing this pandemic treaty since the very beginning of the public hearings, following the entire process and protesting each step along the way. We've documented systematic procedural violations, constitutional breaches, and the fundamental problems with surrendering national sovereignty to an organization that cannot defend its authority under legal scrutiny.

IOJ’s Humble Beginnings of protesting the WHO’s 1st public hearing to the Pandemic treaty

https://rumble.com/v10s1rx-interest-of-justice-establishes-strict-limits-for-the-who-pandemic-treaty-p.html

Countries should not join this treaty framework. The evidence shows WHO lacks the institutional capacity and legal authority to create binding obligations regarding experimental medical interventions. Our legal challenges have established that when subjected to constitutional due process requirements, health authorities systematically default rather than providing evidence to support their programs.

Below we have a last-minute protest email that sends directly to representatives involved in these negotiations. Sometimes these final pushes make a difference, so you might as well try. Every voice of opposition matters when they're trying to ram through agreements that bypass constitutional protections and democratic accountability.

We are getting so much closer to covid WHO justice but still need YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE TO KICK WHO’S ASS - LETS DO THIS GUYS - NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH IS DOING THIS WORK OR BUILT THE WINNING RECORD LIKE IOJ, SO THANKS FOR THE FAITH AND SUPPORT TO CARRY THE MISSION THROUGH!

YOU can help us push this past the goal post to make real positive impact! FAITH!

Donate to Sue the WHO Initiative

We JUST won to corner WHO but need to sue in another court to enforce Nuremberg Code!

Because if not us, then WHO!

If you haven’t signed the demand yet, please do! Share far and wide!

https://suethewho.org/stoppabs

Read all about who to send your letter to! James Roguski has put together a comprehensive list of people who are making the decisions for each of the countries! Take the letter in the article above, find your representative in the article from James below and send it out!

James Roguski

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Be sure to scroll down to the bottom of this article and watch the music video…

Read more

7 months ago · 141 likes · 36 comments · James Roguski

Share

Donate To Sue The WHO

Leave a comment

Related Articles:

Doc Malik Honest Health

Virus - No Virus debate With Jamie Andrews and Dr James Hill MD 14th Sept 5pm UK Midday EST (livestream)

SUPPORT DOC MALIK HONEST HEALTH…

Read more

7 months ago · 52 likes · 6 comments · Doc Malik, James Hill, MD, and Jamie Andrews

Share

Tomorrow, Monday September 15th, 2025, in Geneva CH, World Health Organization convenes basically the final negotiations needed to activate their Pandemic Agreement. They say they will be doing it during the May WHA 2025, but what is really happening on the 15th of September between the international organizations behind closed doors on the international stage that people really don’t understand about Big Pharma and their big business deals? The PABS system - Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing - is the last framework required before the treaty becomes operational. Once countries agree to this, they're legally bound to fund and deploy experimental medical products whenever WHO declares an emergency….”Emergency For Profit” or “EFP”

I Want To Fund Nuremberg Hearing Project

This global meeting to usher in PABS and mRNA platform investments is happening exactly as FDA Commissioner Marty Makary investigates and exposes child deaths from the very same vaccine platform that would be deployed under these agreements.

The timing reveals everything. Costa Rica's Constitutional Court just proved WHO couldn't provide a single safety study when legally ordered to do so. When judges demanded evidence supporting WHO's policies for pregnant women, children, and indigenous populations, WHO went completely silent. The court ruled against them by default. WHO literally had nothing.

Yet tomorrow, despite admitting WHO EUL products are experimental, Costa Rica sits at the negotiating table ready to sign the PABS annex anyway, ushering in these products for the whole population, to be given out like candy if WHO declares another pandemic.

For those unfamiliar with how this works, the Pandemic Agreement was already adopted in May 2025. But it can't be implemented until countries finalize PABS - the system where nations share virus samples with WHO, WHO provides them to pharmaceutical companies, and those companies produce "countermeasures" then countries may be persuaded to purchase and deploy during emergencies.

According to the Agreement, pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in the PABS system will make available to WHO "rapid access targeting 20% of their real time production of safe, quality and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics for the pathogen causing the pandemic emergency."

It's a perpetual BIO-lab profit machine. Countries provide the viruses, companies make the products, WHO declares emergencies, nations must buy and deploy. All using platforms currently under investigation for killing children. It’s a Big Pharma- big business using International Investment Agreements or “IIA’s”.

Last November, Costa Rica's government invited former Pfizer VP Dr. Michael Yeadon and other experts to testify about these WHO treaty agreements. Officials actually called the evidence against WHO EUL “vaccines” and fake PCR based pandemics "very knowledgeable and helpful."

Then, in typical DELPHI fashion (explained below) they ghosted the experts and announced they'd sign anyway. When their own Constitutional Court demanded WHO provide safety data, WHO couldn't produce a single document. The government lost in court. They're proceeding anyway.

Meanwhile, the United States walked away entirely. Bravo! So did Argentina…

President Trump's Executive Order 14155 withdrew America from WHO while the FDA investigates and exposes child deaths following COVID vaccination. Former CDC officials apparently blocked access to this data. Now it's emerging just as nations prepare to lock themselves into agreements requiring deployment of these same products.

This week, September 15-19, negotiators will very likely employ the RAND Corporation's Delphi technique - a consensus-manufacturing method where the outcome is predetermined while participants believe they're deliberating. The Assembly decided that the outcome of this work would be submitted to the Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly in 2026 for its consideration. They're giving themselves until March 2026, but the framework of what they'll agree to is already decided.

James Roguski

The PABS Negotiations are a Devious Psychological Operation

The negotiations for the PABS Annex resume September 15-19, 2025…

Read more

7 months ago · 118 likes · 41 comments · James Roguski

They're really cementing that when WHO declares the next pandemic, countries must share their pathogen samples. Pharmaceutical companies access these samples and develop products using the same mRNA platforms now under investigation. Countries are then obligated to fund and deploy these products to their populations. No evidence required. No safety data necessary. Courts can rule against it, experts can warn against it, children can die from it - the agreements proceed regardless.

Eleven countries abstained from the Pandemic Agreement vote, including Russia, Poland, and Italy. They recognize what's happening. But most nations proceed, even as America exits, even as courts prove there's no evidence, even as the platform itself is under investigation for causing deaths.

Costa Rica exemplifies the absurdity. They have world class scientific expert testimony warning of catastrophe from WHO insane agreements. They have court rulings proving WHO has no evidence for the products they recommend to countries! They have dead silence from WHO when asked to justify their policies. Yet tomorrow they'll participate in manufacturing consensus for a system that locks nations into funding and deploying experimental products with zero safety data.

The negotiations begin tomorrow. The Delphi manipulation runs all week. The outcome is predetermined - unless enough people understand what's actually happening and demand their governments refuse to sign.

Sign the demand below

Alert your representatives. Let them know you're watching as they use manipulation techniques to finalize agreements that bypass evidence, ignore courts, and lock nations into funding products that are killing children.

https://suethewho.org/stoppabs

Visit NurembergHearing.org to see the evidence they're ignoring.

I Want To Fund Nuremberg Hearing Project

We're so thankful for all of you who step up to back up Nuremberg Hearing Project with monthly support of our small but mighty legal team that worked 4 years to expose WHO's lack of evidence recently in Costa Rica's courts. While they manufacture consensus in Geneva, we're preparing the ultimate global challenge in court armed with our recent win May 6 that will help us change the entire corrupt system. The Delphi technique works in conference rooms, not Costa Rica’s courtrooms which include Criminal Universal Jurisdiction courts able to prosecute the covid crimes against humanity. Fund the real fight at NurembergHearing.org - because they are really trying to implement this, but we are ready with top global legal actions and now we have concrete evidence against the “vax” and WHO, et al.

Thanks for being a real hero & keeping faith to not give up!

Stop PABS Before The Windows Close!

We would like to send out a giant thank you to our good friends in Norway sending the following STOP PABS SONG - and all the number of Norwegians that have signed the petition going to the WHO and member states etc.. James Roguski and the freedom fighters - You guys ROCK!

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Related Articles:

Thank you James for doing an amazing job of being the thorn in the side of WHO!

James Roguski

THE PABS NEGOTIATIONS MUST BE STOPPED NOW

Please watch the 3 minute music video below and help spread the word…

Read more

7 months ago · 22 likes · 2 comments · James Roguski

FINAL COUNTDOWN: WHO & Most countries meet Monday 15-19 for PABS!

Share

Subscribe now

Stop accepting defeat and powerlessness. Take a baby step to freedom & personal sovereign power!

Donate to Sue the WHO Initiative

We've been thinking a lot lately about how easily we can all feel disconnected from the international agreements that our governments sign on our behalf.

There's something almost abstract about these negotiations happening in Geneva or New York—until suddenly we wake up to find our countries bound by commitments we never really had a chance to examine or discuss.

The upcoming WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing framework negotiations, scheduled for September 15-19, 2025, present one of those moments where citizen engagement actually matters. Not because we need to stop international cooperation, quite the opposite. It's because meaningful international cooperation should strengthen rather than circumvent our democratic institutions.

We've spent considerable time reviewing the proposed PABS framework, and frankly, there are aspects that give us pause. Not from an anti-globalization perspective, but from a democratic governance standpoint. When international agreements create binding obligations that could potentially override national regulatory decisions, we're talking about fundamental questions of sovereignty and constitutional process that deserve broader discussion.

The framework would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to contribute twenty percent of their production during declared health emergencies, with WHO officials having authority to determine when such requirements are activated. While the public health rationale is understandable, the implementation mechanism raises questions about democratic oversight. These operations would occur through private contracts between WHO and manufacturers, limiting opportunities for public scrutiny or parliamentary review.

What concerns IoJ most is the potential for emergency activation mechanisms to bypass established domestic legislation and decision-making processes. Our national regulatory authorities traditionally maintain independence in evaluating medical products for their specific populations. When international treaty obligations constrain that independence, we're essentially trading democratic accountability for administrative efficiency.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is quite clear about requirements for legitimate treaty formation, including compliance with internal constitutional law and protection against fundamental violations of international legal norms.

We've prepared a diplomatic letter below that you can copy and send to your governments that raises these serious concerns in professional terms appropriate for YOUR governments urgent consideration. Please take action if able to do so!

The letter focuses on procedural questions rather than partisan political positions. It asks for extended consultation periods, enhanced transparency measures, constitutional compliance review, and clear mechanisms for democratic oversight. These seem like reasonable requests that any government should welcome.

Here's what IoJ thinks we can do as engaged citizens. First,

• download the diplomatic correspondence we've prepared and review it carefully. It's written in formal diplomatic language because that's what gets taken seriously in government circles.

Get your copy below NOW (look for the red arrow and download your copy) and send it immediately, then follow up and call, email, pester - BE THE PERSISTENCE!!!

• You can easily identify your appropriate government contacts—your Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Health are the primary recipients, though your local parliamentary representatives should also be informed.

The key is professional, respectful communication.

Government offices receive countless emails daily, but thoughtful correspondence that demonstrates genuine civic engagement stands out.

• Attach the diplomatic letter as a PDF and copy and paste the brief, courteous cover message IoJ made everyone posted below this message explaining your concerns about democratic oversight of international health agreements.

Timing matters here. The September 15-19 PABS (Pandemic Treaty) final negotiations represent a critical window for citizen input. Once international agreements are finalized, opportunities for meaningful influence become severely limited. Public participation is most effective during policy formation, not after diplomatic consensus has solidified.

IoJ wants to emphasize that this isn't about stopping these negotiations or opposing international health cooperation. It's about maintaining the principle that citizens should have meaningful input into agreements that affect them. Whether you share my specific concerns about this framework or simply believe in robust democratic oversight of international commitments, your participation strengthens our democratic institutions.

Professional citizen engagement has real impact. Government officials need to know that constituents are paying attention to complex international negotiations, not just domestic political theater. When citizens demonstrate informed interest in governance processes, it encourages more transparent and accountable decision-making.

Your government works for you, but they can't represent your interests if they don't know you're paying attention. The diplomatic letter provides a vehicle for expressing legitimate governance concerns in language that government officials take seriously.

Donate to Sue the WHO Initiative

Democracy requires active participation, not just during elections but throughout the policy-making process. International agreements that create binding obligations affecting national policy deserve the same democratic scrutiny we expect for domestic legislation. This is our opportunity to ensure that democratic principles remain central to how our governments engage with international institutions.

Download the diplomatic correspondence located below, identify your government contacts, and add your voice to this important conversation about democratic governance and international cooperation.

Calling All Activists! Stop WHO Power Grab! Download, Sign and Share!

They are at last steps, Treaty is adopted and awaiting PABS AGREEMENT. Help stop them!

Email the GLOBAL STOP PABS LETTER and/or send it in the mail to your National Ministry of Foreign and political affairs and Ministries of Health!

Professional, respectful communication carries more weight than emotional appeals. Focus on procedural and governance concerns to ensure your voice is heard effectively.

COPY and PASTE the verbiage below into your email as your EMAIL BODY (Cover Letter):

Your Excellencies,

We respectfully request your attention to the attached diplomatic correspondence regarding the World Health Organization's Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) framework, scheduled for final negotiations September 15-19, 2025. The attached scholarly analysis presents substantive concerns regarding constitutional governance, democratic accountability, and international law implications that merit consideration during the upcoming negotiations.

We would be honored by your review of these important matters and remain available for any clarification or further discussion you may require.

Respectfully, [Your name/organization]

ATTACHMENT: Diplomatic Correspondence (PDF)

HERE’S THE ATTACHED DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE LETTER BELOW

We wrote it for you! Translate it into your language thats needed too!

DOWNLOAD AND SEND NOW!

Global Demand To Halt Pathogen Access And Benefit Sharing Framework

80.3KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

TO: Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Ministries of Health
FROM: [Sender Organization/Citizens Group]
DATE: [Date]
RE: Analysis and Concerns Regarding the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing Framework

Your Excellencies,

We respectfully submit this analysis and diplomatic communication to express substantive concerns regarding the World Health Organization's Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) framework, currently scheduled for final negotiations from September 15-19, 2025. Our observations arise from careful examination of the proposed framework's implications for international governance, constitutional law, and democratic accountability.

Analysis of the Proposed Framework

The PABS framework represents a significant expansion of international health governance mechanisms that would establish binding obligations requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to contribute twenty percent of their production during declared health emergencies. This system would grant the World Health Organization centralized authority to determine when such emergency requirements are activated, creating a framework that could potentially override national regulatory decisions through international treaty obligations.

While international cooperation in health emergencies serves legitimate public health objectives, the proposed structure raises fundamental questions about the balance between global coordination and national sovereignty. The binding nature of these obligations may conflict with established constitutional requirements for legislative oversight of international agreements, particularly in democratic systems where parliamentary bodies maintain constitutional responsibilities for evaluating treaty commitments that affect domestic policy.

Our analysis reveals several areas where the proposed framework may not adequately address established principles of democratic governance and international law. The implementation mechanism, which would operate through private contracts between the WHO and pharmaceutical manufacturers, appears to limit opportunities for public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. This structure raises questions about whether affected populations and their elected representatives will have adequate means to monitor and evaluate the framework's implementation.

Furthermore, the emergency activation mechanisms embedded within the framework could potentially circumvent established domestic decision-making processes. National regulatory authorities, which traditionally maintain independence in evaluating medical products for their specific populations, may find their discretionary authority constrained by binding international obligations. This tension between international coordination and national regulatory independence merits careful consideration, particularly given the diversity of constitutional systems and regulatory frameworks among potential signatory states.

The timeline between negotiation completion and ratification also raises procedural concerns. Democratic review processes require adequate time and comprehensive information to evaluate complex international agreements. The current schedule may not provide sufficient opportunity for the thorough constitutional review and public consultation that such agreements typically require.

International Law and Constitutional Compatibility

From the perspective of established international law principles, several aspects of the proposed framework warrant careful examination. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes clear requirements for legitimate treaty formation, including good faith performance of obligations, compliance with internal constitutional law, and protection against violations of fundamental international legal norms.

The interaction between emergency activation mechanisms and national constitutional processes presents particular challenges. Democratic constitutions typically require that international agreements undergo proper legislative review, and emergency provisions generally cannot be used to circumvent these fundamental governance requirements. The framework's structure may create tensions with these established constitutional principles, particularly in systems where separation of powers and legislative oversight constitute core democratic safeguards.

Additionally, questions arise about the adequacy of stakeholder consultation during the negotiation process. Effective treaty formation requires meaningful participation from affected parties and civil society organizations. The apparent limitations in transparent consultation processes raise concerns about whether the framework reflects sufficient input from diverse stakeholders who would be affected by its implementation.

Recommendations for Constructive Engagement

Given these substantive concerns, we respectfully recommend several measures that could strengthen the framework's compatibility with established governance principles. An extended consultation period would ensure adequate democratic review and meaningful public input, while enhanced transparency measures regarding implementation mechanisms and oversight procedures would facilitate proper evaluation by legislative bodies.

Constitutional compliance review represents another critical consideration. Each potential signatory state should have adequate opportunity to assess the framework's compatibility with its national governance structure and constitutional requirements. This process cannot be rushed without undermining the legitimacy of the resulting international obligations.

The framework would also benefit from explicit safeguards for national sovereignty in health emergency decision-making, along with clear mechanisms for democratic oversight of international health agreements. These provisions would help ensure that international cooperation enhances rather than undermines democratic governance principles.

While recognizing the legitimate objectives underlying international health cooperation, we believe the concerns outlined above merit serious consideration during the upcoming negotiations. The challenge lies in developing frameworks that effectively coordinate international responses to health emergencies while preserving the democratic accountability, constitutional governance, and national sovereignty that form the foundation of legitimate governmental authority.

We respectfully urge your consideration of these substantive issues and welcome the opportunity for constructive dialogue on these important matters. The complexity of balancing international cooperation with democratic governance requires careful deliberation and broad consultation to ensure that resulting agreements serve both public health objectives and the principles of legitimate governmental authority that democratic societies require.

We remain available for further scholarly discussion and analysis of these critical issues affecting international governance and public health policy.

Respectfully submitted,

[Signature block]
[Organization/Group name, if any]
[Contact information]

If you haven’t signed the GLOBAL DEMAND to the WHO to Stop PABS (The Treaty), please do so and share

This is another easy way to take action. Please do BOTH actions if able!

https://suethewho.org/stoppabs

Here’s what the Demand above says to WHO & Countries:

Greetings, Member States and the World Health Organization

The Original Demand sending in real time currently to the WHO and the United Nations

FORMAL DEMAND TO HALT PATHOGEN ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING FRAMEWORK TO: Member States of the World Health Organization and National Constitutional Authorities Worldwide

FROM: Citizens and Legal Stakeholders Defending Constitutional Governance and Human Rights

RE: Constitutional and International Law Objections to WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing Framework

URGENT STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION We, the undersigned citizens, submit this formal petition/demand opposing the World Health Organization's Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing framework, scheduled for final negotiations September 15-19, 2025. This framework seeks to make systematic violations of constitutional governance and international law permanent through binding international treaty obligations.

The timing is critical. Recent events expose fundamental contradictions in current medical governance. On August 27, 2025, the United States Department of Health and Human Services withdrew mRNA product recommendations for healthy populations while maintaining identical interventions for vulnerable populations. This contradiction reveals that authorities understand these interventions cause harm while systematically misrepresenting their experimental nature to circumvent constitutional requirements for informed consent.

September 15-19, 2025 represents the final window to prevent these systematic violations from becoming permanently legal worldwide. WHAT THE PABS FRAMEWORK ACTUALLY DOES The PABS framework institutionalizes through binding international treaty the very experimental medical programs that are failing under constitutional scrutiny worldwide:

• Mandatory Corporate Contributions: Requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to contribute "20 percent of their production of medical countermeasures" to WHO during declared emergencies

• WHO Emergency Authority: Grants WHO officials unilateral authority to determine when "pathogen emergencies" justify mandatory contribution requirements, overriding national regulatory determinations

• Constitutional Override: Creates binding international obligations that prevent national authorities from protecting their citizens when they determine experimental interventions present unacceptable risks

The fundamental problem: When competent national authorities determine experimental medical interventions are unsafe (as the United States has for healthy populations), PABS treaty obligations would prevent such determinations from affecting global distribution, systematically undermining national sovereignty and constitutional governance. WHY PABS VIOLATES ESTABLISHED LAW Nuremberg Code Violations Current experimental medical frameworks systematically violate international law through coordinated deception designed to circumvent informed consent requirements. Regulatory authorities characterize experimental gene therapy products as "vaccines" to avoid informing recipients of their participation in ongoing clinical investigations. Citizens were not told they were participating in clinical trials with unknown long-term effects, receiving experimental genetic modification technologies, or experiencing unprecedented mechanisms of cellular production of pathogenic proteins. Institutional Incapacity When confronted with judicial orders requiring evidence to support experimental medical programs, health authorities have systematically defaulted rather than providing evidence. In Costa Rica, neither health authorities nor the World Health Organization could provide safety evidence when subjected to constitutional due process requirements, resulting in complete administrative default extending beyond three months. Treaty Formation Impossibilities The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes that states cannot be bound by treaties violating internal constitutional law or procured through systematic deception. The systematic misrepresentation of experimental gene therapy interventions as traditional vaccines to circumvent informed consent requirements establishes fraud underlying proposed treaty formation. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL FAILURES Legal proceedings across multiple countries demonstrate a consistent pattern: regulatory authorities cannot defend experimental medical programs when subjected to constitutional due process requirements.

Diagnostic Fraud: The Corman-Drosten protocol underlying WHO's PCR diagnostic methodologies was published and accepted within 24 hours despite fundamental scientific flaws, including absence of proper validation. This expedited approval enabled global implementation of invalid testing protocols that created false justification for experimental medical interventions.

Systematic Informed Consent Violations: Documentary evidence reveals systematic withholding of information regarding the experimental nature of interventions, unknown biodistribution patterns, DNA contamination exceeding regulatory safety thresholds, and unprecedented cellular modification mechanisms.

WHO Institutional Defaults: When judicial proceedings required WHO officials to provide evidence supporting their authority, they defaulted rather than defending their position under legal scrutiny, demonstrating fundamental incapacity to create binding legal obligations regarding experimental medical interventions.

Lack of Transparency in Implementation: PABS operations will be conducted through private contracts between WHO and manufacturers that will not be subject to public scrutiny or stakeholder oversight, despite being funded through mandatory corporate contributions and affecting global health policy. This lack of transparency prevents democratic oversight of international agreements affecting national populations. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION Based on comprehensive evidence of constitutional violations and international law breaches, we demand immediate governmental action:

1. Immediate Suspension of PABS Negotiations pending constitutional compliance review and resolution of fundamental authority disputes currently under judicial review.

2. Implementation of Transparent Informed Consent Requirements meeting established international standards, including mandatory disclosure that current products are investigational with unknown long-term effects.

3. Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions raised by international health governance frameworks that systematically bypass national constitutional protections through emergency declarations and treaty obligations.

4. Protection of National Sovereignty through refusal to participate in international agreements that violate constitutional requirements for legitimate governmental authority and individual rights protection. THE FUNDAMENTAL CHOICE BEFORE GOVERNMENTS The PABS framework presents governments with a fundamental choice between constitutional governance operating through established legal processes that protect individual rights and national sovereignty, versus international bureaucratic authority that systematically circumvents such protections through treaty obligations designed to avoid constitutional accountability.

This choice determines whether emergency declarations can permanently suspend constitutional protections, whether experimental medical interventions can be conducted without informed consent, and whether international agreements can override national sovereignty through mechanisms specifically designed to circumvent legitimate governmental oversight. LEGAL AUTHORITIES PREVENTING TREATY FORMATION Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Articles 26, 46, 48, and 53 establish requirements for good faith performance, internal law compliance, fraud prevention, and fundamental international law norm protection that PABS systematically violates.

International Human Rights Obligations: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7, Nuremberg Code, and Helsinki Declaration establish binding prohibitions on non-consensual medical experimentation that PABS would institutionalize.

WHO Constitutional Framework: WHO's own constitutional requirements for organizational independence are violated through systematic integration with private pharmaceutical companies, creating conflicts where commercial interests override public health considerations. CONCLUSION AND FORMAL CITIZEN DEMAND We respectfully submit that documented constitutional defects and international law violations underlying the PABS framework render its implementation legally impossible within constitutional governance systems and fundamentally incompatible with established international law principles governing legitimate governmental authority and human rights protection.

The September 15-19, 2025 PABS negotiations represent the final opportunity for constitutional enforcement before diplomatic consensus solidifies into binding international obligations that violate national sovereignty and individual rights protections.

Through this formal petition, we establish documented public opposition to permanent institutionalization of human experimentation through international treaty obligations, providing governmental officials with clear citizen mandate for constitutional compliance and principled resistance to international pressure for treaty participation.

We, the undersigned citizens, formally demand that our governments suspend participation in PABS negotiations and resist international treaty obligations that systematically violate established constitutional principles governing human experimentation, informed consent, and individual rights protection.

CITIZEN SIGNATURES AND FORMAL SUBMISSION

This petition represents citizen opposition to systematic violations of constitutional governance and international law. Citizens worldwide have the constitutional right to demand that their governments comply with established legal principles governing legitimate authority and human rights protection.

Submitted on behalf of citizens worldwide demanding constitutional compliance and resistance to international treaty obligations that violate fundamental human rights and national sovereignty protections. This correspondence is submitted in the spirit of scholarly inquiry and constructive engagement on matters of international governance, constitutional law, and public health policy.

Share

We are getting so much closer to covid WHO justice but still need YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE TO KICK WHO’S ASS - LETS DO THIS GUYS - NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH IS DOING THIS WORK OR BUILT THE WINNING RECORD LIKE IOJ, SO THANKS FOR THE FAITH AND SUPPORT TO CARRY THE MISSION THROUGH!

YOU can help us push this past the goal post to make real positive impact! FAITH!

Donate to Sue the WHO Initiative

We JUST won to corner WHO but need to sue in another court to enforce Nuremberg Code!

Leave a comment

Related Reading Below, This is important!

HELL YES WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE PEOPLE (usually last minute haha)

James Roguski

The PABS Negotiations are a Devious Psychological Operation

The negotiations for the PABS Annex resume September 15-19, 2025…

Read more

7 months ago · 117 likes · 39 comments · James Roguski

Sign the emergency demand

Please share far and wide!

suethewho.org/stoppabs

Sign now: suethewho.org/stoppabs

Share

Subscribe now

You are a superhero for supporting our mission to protect humanity!

Support The Mission With A Donation

What’s this all about? Why should I care about PABS or the WHO Treaty?

While the world fixates on broader pandemic preparedness debates, the real battle unfolds over something most people have never heard of: PABS—Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing.

In just ten days, on September 15-19, 2025, WHO member states will finalize negotiations that could permanently institutionalize experimental medical programs through binding international law.

This represents the most significant realignment of global health politics since the founding of the World Health Organization itself. The stakes could not be higher: Who controls the biological information that enables pandemic preparedness? Who benefits when that information becomes life-saving medical interventions?

The answers reveal a world increasingly split between lockstep global governance and constitutional sovereignty.

How PABS Creates Guaranteed Profits From Pathogens

Under PABS, pharmaceutical manufacturers face mandatory obligations to contribute "20 percent of their real-time production of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics" to WHO distribution during declared emergencies. This sounds like international cooperation until you examine the underlying economics and business incentives.

Nations identifying and sharing pathogen samples receive financial benefits from resulting pharmaceutical products, while companies gain guaranteed international distribution channels funded through taxpayer treaty obligations rather than market accountability. WHO officials would gain discretionary authority to determine when "pathogen emergencies" justify activation of mandatory contribution requirements from WHO Member States.

It’s kind of a big deal folks. The PABS system establishes binding requirements for signatory nations to maintain permanent capacity for rapid distribution of experimental medical countermeasures during future declared emergencies. This transforms temporary emergency measures into permanent international distribution systems that systematically bypass national regulatory review and constitutional oversight mechanisms.

What makes this particularly concerning is the experimental nature of medical interventions derived from novel pathogens. By definition, when new pathogens emerge, any resulting medical countermeasures represent experimental treatments with unknown long-term effects. PABS institutionalizes this experimentation process through international law while circumventing informed consent requirements that would normally govern such experimental programs.

Maybe we should repeat it so you all see how serious this fight is:

PABS institutionalizes this experimentation process through international law while circumventing informed consent requirements that would normally govern such experimental programs.

The Great Divide - Which Countries Support Global Health Governance vs National Sovereignty?

The current negotiations reveal an international community with overwhelming consensus toward lockstep global governance, with only a tiny coalition defending constitutional sovereignty—a geopolitical realignment that would have seemed impossible just a decade ago.

Countries Supporting PABS Framework:

• China - Now WHO's largest financial contributor following American withdrawal, advocates linking pathogen access directly to countries' participation in the Pandemic Agreement, transforming biological cooperation into diplomatic leverage

• European Union Core Members - Support rapid sharing mechanisms with minimal restrictions, though several member states have expressed constitutional concerns

• Group for Equity (33 Developing Nations) - Led by Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, and India, presenting comprehensive alternative vision including detailed requirements for Standard Material Transfer Agreements, mandatory monetary contributions from pharmaceutical companies, and guaranteed access to significant percentage of products developed using shared pathogen data

• African Union - Unanimous support for comprehensive benefit-sharing arrangements, explicitly framing PABS as opportunity to "get legal certainty for both users and providers," viewing this as chance to establish precedents for biological wealth beyond health

• Costa Rica - The most dramatic story involves Costa Rica's complete position reversal. Costa Rica was initially recognized by WHO among countries whose leaders received certificates "for their guidance and commitment throughout the negotiation process" championing the pandemic agreement. What a bunch of sellouts they were, until Interest of Justice's diligent 30-page risk report and November 11, 2024 government hearing convinced them to become the only country in the world to reject the WHO Pandemic Treaty outright. IOJ had their commitment in writing until they were persuaded with WHO’s honey’d words again and reverted back to becoming sellouts!

• Most WHO Member States - Seeking guaranteed access to medical countermeasures during emergencies, willing to accept international oversight in exchange for pandemic preparedness benefits

Countries Opposing or Resisting:

• United States - Simply walked away from the table entirely. Trump administration's withdrawal from WHO represents fundamental rejection of multilateral approaches to pandemic governance that constrain American autonomy. Twenty-six U.S. state governors have preemptively declared their intention not to comply with any WHO treaty

• Poland, Italy, Slovakia - Abstained from the WHO Pandemic Agreement, citing concerns about national autonomy in health decision-making, reflecting growing skepticism about transferring sovereign prerogatives to international bureaucracies

• Russia, Israel, Iran - Also abstained from the pandemic agreement vote, citing various sovereignty and implementation concerns

This sovereignty-first approach reflects growing skepticism about transferring sovereign prerogatives to international bureaucracies, particularly in areas as politically sensitive as health policy. The resistance stems from a fundamental understanding that novel pathogens produce inherently experimental medical interventions, yet most countries appear eager to institutionalize such experimentation on their populations without constitutional safeguards.

Why The Persistence Matters

The foundational story begins in 2007 when Indonesia stopped sharing H5N1 virus samples after discovering they couldn't access vaccines developed from their own biological materials. Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari captured the moral outrage: "Indonesia was sharing its virus samples with the rich countries to produce antivirals and vaccines. And when the pandemic occurs, they survive and we die."

This "viral sovereignty" assertion exposed fundamental asymmetries where developing countries provide raw materials for medical innovations from which they're then systematically excluded. The recent Omicron variant discovery by South African scientists perfectly encapsulates these perverse incentives. When South African scientists rapidly identified and reported the Omicron variant—demonstrating exactly the transparent, rapid sharing that PABS advocates celebrate—they were rewarded with immediate travel bans and economic sanctions.

PABS, rather than addressing this fundamental inequity, appears designed to institutionalize it. By requiring immediate, unconditional pathogen sharing while making benefit-sharing voluntary and subjective, PABS creates a legal framework that guarantees extraction while making reciprocity optional.

Recent events expose fundamental contradictions in current medical governance that PABS seeks to institutionalize. On August 27, 2025, the United States Department of Health and Human Services withdrew mRNA product recommendations for healthy populations while maintaining identical interventions for vulnerable populations. This contradiction reveals that authorities understand these interventions cause harm while systematically misrepresenting their experimental nature.

Constitutional challenges across multiple jurisdictions demonstrate a consistent pattern: regulatory authorities cannot defend experimental medical programs when subjected to constitutional due process requirements. In Costa Rica, neither health authorities nor WHO could provide safety evidence when subjected to constitutional due process requirements, resulting in IoJ’s May 6th, 2025 Supreme Court win ending in complete administrative default extending beyond three months.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes that states cannot be bound by treaties violating internal constitutional law or procured through systematic deception. The systematic misrepresentation of experimental gene therapy interventions as traditional vaccines to circumvent informed consent requirements establishes fraud underlying proposed treaty formation.

Ten Days for The Treaty To Go Through & Legalizing Experimentation on Your Nation?

Can we stop the madness?

The extended timeline for PABS negotiations creates unprecedented opportunity for constitutional enforcement during active treaty formation. Diplomatic sources confirm states cannot sign agreements until conclusion of PABS annex negotiations, with signature and ratification deferred until completion tentatively scheduled for the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026.

If PABS negotiations conclude successfully, the entire WHO Pandemic Agreement framework—already adopted in May 2025—automatically becomes operational and ready for ratification. This represents a point of no return where temporary emergency measures become permanent international distribution systems operating outside constitutional accountability mechanisms.

Unlike challenging international agreements after signature and ratification, constitutional interventions during negotiations can establish binding legal constraints that make treaty formation legally impossible for governments operating under constitutional due process requirements.

Government officials across multiple jurisdictions understand constitutional problems with PABS but require documented public pressure to justify rejecting international demands for treaty participation. When citizens formally petition demanding constitutional compliance, they provide political foundation enabling officials to resist treaty ratification.

The PABS framework presents governments with a fundamental choice between constitutional governance operating through established legal processes protecting individual rights and national sovereignty, versus international bureaucratic authority systematically circumventing such protections through treaty obligations designed to avoid constitutional accountability.

The countdown begins now. Ten days until this becomes permanent.

Sign the emergency demand at:

suethewho.org/stoppabs

Sue the WHO Legal Initiative (Idiot's Guide to EXIT the WHO)

SIGN NOW! FORMAL STOP PABS - DEMAND TO HALT W.H.O. INSTITUTIONALIZED HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATY

Read more

7 months ago · 8 likes · 2 comments · Interest of Justice

Share

YOU CAN HELP FUEL IOJ’s FIGHT TO STOP WHO GLOBAL TYRANNY

You are a superhero for supporting our mission to protect humanity!

Support The Mission With A Donation

WE CAN’T STOP NOW! IoJ REALLY NEEDS YOUR HELP & SUPPORT TO CONTINUE TO KICK W.H.O.’s A**!

Your support is powerful - your donation is for CRITICAL RESOURCES

WHERE YOUR DONATION GOES:

• Legal challenges to STOP the treaties

• Massive awareness campaigns

• Grassroots organizing nationwide

• Fighting for YOUR constitutional rights

Leave a comment

Why WHO's disclaimer about voluntary participation is the most dangerous lie in international health law

If you haven’t signed the global demand to stop WHO medical tyranny, please take the initiative, spread the word and we appreciate a kind donation to keep our work alive. Interest of Justice wants to help create new systems for the people of the globe and expose the old system for what it is. The Demand sends to the international public servants in real time!

https://suethewho.org/stoppabs

Share

Subscribe now

We promise we work tirelessly for the past 5 years collecting judicial evidence between international jurisdictions and every bit of support is being used for the benefit of the people!
Are you willing to donate a $1000.00 or more? Thank you!

Support IOJ in Health Freedom Movement

With eleven days remaining until the World Health Organization convenes its most consequential negotiations in modern history, a fundamental deception lies at the heart of the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing framework. While WHO officials repeatedly emphasize that "nothing is mandatory," the legal architecture they're constructing will effectively mandate experimental health products as permanent investment priorities for all 194 member states.

The WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted just months ago on May 20, 2025, establishes what can only be described as a carefully orchestrated legal trap. Through binding treaty obligations disguised as voluntary cooperation, the framework requires signatory nations to prioritize investment in "relevant health products" during declared emergencies. This creates a sophisticated mechanism where experimental medical interventions become mandatory state expenditures through international law, even as WHO maintains the fiction of voluntary participation.

The upcoming September 15-19 negotiations will finalize the PABS annex that transforms this framework from diplomatic aspiration into binding international law. Once these negotiations conclude, the window for constitutional resistance closes permanently.

We Can Still Stop The Architecture of Deception!

The fundamental dishonesty underlying PABS operates through what legal scholars recognize as a two-tiered obligation structure. This design allows WHO officials to maintain their "voluntary" rhetoric while constructing binding requirements that make compliance practically unavoidable.

At the first tier, pharmaceutical manufacturers face what WHO characterizes as voluntary participation in contributing "20 percent of their real-time production of so called “safe”, “quality” and “effective vaccines”, therapeutics, and diagnostics" to WHO distribution during declared emergencies. While technically voluntary, this participation becomes economically essential as manufacturers lose access to critical pathogen data and global distribution networks without PABS membership.

The second tier reveals the trap's true mechanism. Under Article 12 and related provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, signatory states commit to prioritizing investment in WHO-designated "relevant health products" during emergency declarations, maintaining permanent capacity for rapid distribution of experimental medical countermeasures, ensuring equitable access to allocated pharmaceutical quotas for their domestic populations, and coordinating procurement through WHO-approved distribution channels.

These commitments constitute binding international law obligations that member states must implement through domestic legislation and resource allocation. No amount of WHO disclaimer language can alter the legal reality that treaty obligations create enforceable duties under international law, regardless of how they're characterized in press releases.

The 194-State Implementation Trap, Because Every Mousetrap Comes With Cheese!

Once the PABS annex is finalized and the WHO Pandemic Agreement enters into force, every WHO member state faces what international lawyers term an "implementation cascade." Treaty obligations generate irresistible domestic policy pressures that transform voluntary recommendations into practical mandates through economic coercion, diplomatic isolation, and legal enforcement.

States that resist their implicit quota obligations quickly discover the enforcement mechanisms built into the system. Financial penalties arrive through exclusion from WHO emergency funding and international health security financing. Diplomatic isolation follows as non-participating states face criticism for failing to contribute to global health security, creating overwhelming peer pressure within international forums. Perhaps most critically, supply chain dependency ensures that as major pharmaceutical manufacturers integrate into the PABS system, non-participating states lose access to independent procurement channels, making WHO allocation systems their primary source for emergency health products.

The constitutional implications prove even more troubling. The PABS framework systematically circumvents national constitutional processes governing experimental medical interventions. When WHO officials declare pathogen emergencies and activate PABS distribution requirements, member states face immediate pressure to implement domestic distribution programs without the constitutional safeguards normally required for experimental medical programs.

From International Treaty to Domestic Mandate

The WHO's assertion that "nothing is mandatory" represents perhaps the most dangerous mischaracterization in modern international health law. Treaty obligations operate through well-established legal mechanisms that transform international "recommendations" into binding domestic mandates regardless of diplomatic rhetoric.

Legislative implementation requirements ensure that most constitutional systems must pass laws establishing procurement mechanisms for WHO-allocated pharmaceutical quotas, distribution systems for experimental health products to domestic populations, regulatory frameworks that accommodate WHO emergency determinations, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure quota compliance within national territories.

Even without specific legislative action, administrative mandate creation grants executive health authorities broad emergency powers to implement international treaty obligations during WHO-declared emergencies. This creates administrative mandates operating outside normal democratic oversight, including emergency procurement authority to purchase WHO-allocated experimental products, distribution mandates for health systems to administer allocated quotas, regulatory streamlining that bypasses normal safety review processes, and compliance monitoring to ensure domestic quota fulfillment.

Courts in treaty-compliant jurisdictions will enforce PABS implementation as a matter of international law obligation, regardless of national health authorities' scientific assessments. This creates binding judicial mandates where citizens can compel government compliance with WHO allocation requirements through litigation.

Why Member States Could Mandate Their Citizens If We Don’t Impede Their Schemes!

The PABS framework creates powerful incentives for member state governments to impose domestic mandates on their own citizens, even in countries with strong constitutional protections for individual liberty. These incentives operate through multiple channels that make voluntary compliance politically and economically unsustainable.

International compliance pressure emerges from measurable benchmarks for PABS quota distribution, creating overwhelming incentives for governments to ensure high domestic uptake rates through mandatory programs rather than risk the uncertainty of voluntary adoption. Resource efficiency justifications allow governments to frame domestic mandates as necessary fiscal stewardship, arguing that expensive international pharmaceutical allocations cannot be wasted through inadequate distribution.

Diplomatic reputation management becomes critical as states that fail to achieve high domestic distribution rates face international criticism for inadequate pandemic preparedness. This creates irresistible political incentives for mandatory implementation regardless of scientific justification or constitutional concerns.

Perhaps most insidiously, legal liability avoidance drives governments toward domestic mandates as a strategy to avoid potential legal consequences for failing to fulfill international treaty obligations. By shifting responsibility for implementation failures from administrative agencies to individual citizens through mandate compliance, governments can claim they've fulfilled their international obligations regardless of actual health outcomes.

Share

We promise we have working tirelessly for the past 5 years collecting judicial evidence between international jurisdictions and every bit of support is being used for the benefit of the people and the legal proceedings. Our record and history of winning against tyranny in the supreme court is because of all of the previous help and support from our amazing supporters! We’re not finished yet! Lets keep winning and exposing them for who they are!
Are you willing to donate a $1000.00 or more? Thank you!

Support IOJ in Health Freedom Movement

This Is A Pivotal Constitutional Moment

The approaching negotiations represent what constitutional scholars call a "constitutional moment"—a rare opportunity to establish fundamental principles governing international health authority before institutional arrangements become entrenched through practice and precedent. Once the PABS annex is adopted and the WHO Pandemic Agreement enters into force, reversing these obligations will require the extraordinarily difficult process of treaty withdrawal or amendment.

Critical negotiation points will determine whether any meaningful space remains for national sovereignty. Emergency declaration standards must establish who determines when pathogen emergencies justify PABS activation, and whether states can appeal or override such determinations based on independent scientific assessment. Quota allocation mechanisms need clarification regarding how WHO will determine domestic distribution requirements and what penalties apply to states that fail to meet allocated quotas.

The regulatory override question demands resolution: can WHO emergency declarations supersede national regulatory determinations about experimental product safety or efficacy? Exit procedures must provide clear mechanisms allowing states to withdraw from PABS obligations without violating broader WHO Pandemic Agreement commitments.

The Dubious Legal Mechanisms of Transformation

The transformation from WHO "voluntary" recommendations to domestic mandates operates through established legal mechanisms that international law scholars have documented across numerous treaty contexts. Treaty implementation doctrine under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires that international agreements be performed in good faith, meaning states cannot avoid implementation simply by characterizing treaty obligations as "voluntary."

Emergency powers activation grants WHO officials authority to trigger domestic implementation requirements through international emergency declarations. Once activated, these provisions operate as binding international law obligations that domestic authorities must implement regardless of their independent scientific assessments.

Regulatory harmonization requirements demand that PABS implementation harmonize domestic regulatory frameworks with WHO emergency procedures, effectively transferring regulatory authority from national health agencies to international bureaucratic mechanisms during declared emergencies.

The Enforcement Reality

Despite WHO disclaimers about voluntary participation, the PABS framework includes multiple enforcement mechanisms that effectively mandate member state compliance. Financial enforcement excludes non-compliant states from WHO emergency funding programs, international health security financing, pandemic preparedness grants, and global health initiative participation.

Diplomatic enforcement creates systematic pressure through public criticism in international health forums, exclusion from bilateral health cooperation agreements, negative assessments in global health security evaluations, and isolation from regional health governance initiatives.

Market enforcement proves most coercive as pharmaceutical manufacturers integrate into PABS systems. Non-participating states lose access to independent procurement channels for emergency health products, direct manufacturer relationships outside WHO allocation systems, alternative supply chains during international health emergencies, and competitive pricing mechanisms for experimental medical interventions.

The Constitutional Choice We Must Make Together Now!

The September 15-19 negotiations present 194 WHO member states with three fundamental options, each carrying profound implications for constitutional governance and national sovereignty.

The first option involves accepting the mandate framework as currently structured. This means acknowledging that international treaty obligations will generate domestic mandate pressures, WHO emergency declarations will trigger binding implementation requirements, national sovereignty over experimental medical interventions will be substantially limited, and constitutional processes governing public health will be systematically circumvented.

The second option demands constitutional safeguards through PABS modifications preserving national override authority for WHO emergency declarations based on independent constitutional and scientific review, genuine voluntary participation without economic or diplomatic penalties for non-compliance, transparent accountability mechanisms for all PABS contracts and distribution arrangements, and democratic oversight requirements for domestic implementation of international health obligations.

The third option involves complete rejection of framework participation, preserving total national sovereignty over experimental medical intervention policies, independent regulatory authority during international health emergencies, constitutional governance processes for public health decision-making, and democratic accountability for domestic health policy implementation.

Beyond Pandemic Preparedness - Temporary To Permanent Tyranny?

The PABS framework establishes precedent for permanent international mandate authority over experimental medical interventions that will outlast any particular pandemic or health emergency. Once operational, this authority becomes available for activation during future WHO emergency declarations covering seasonal influenza variants requiring annual experimental interventions, endemic respiratory pathogens redefined as pandemic threats, emerging infectious diseases with limited safety data, and biodefense countermeasures for hypothetical biological threats.

The framework's activation mechanisms ensure that "temporary" emergency measures become permanent international mandate authority operating outside normal constitutional constraints on experimental medical programs. This represents a fundamental transformation in the relationship between international organizations and domestic constitutional governance.

Our Final Window Of Opportunity!

Eleven days remain before WHO negotiations permanently institutionalize experimental medical mandate authority for 194 member states. The choice facing governments transcends the technical details of pharmaceutical distribution systems. It concerns the fundamental question of whether constitutional governance and democratic oversight of experimental medical programs can survive the systematic circumvention built into the PABS framework.

Citizens who value constitutional governance and democratic oversight have eleven days to demand that their governments reject frameworks that systematically transform "voluntary" international recommendations into binding domestic mandates. The September 19th conclusion of PABS negotiations will determine whether constitutional governance proves stronger than coordinated international authority seeking to institutionalize the systematic circumvention of national sovereignty and individual rights protections.

The window for constitutional intervention closes in eleven days. What emerges will shape experimental medical mandate authority for generations.

Constitutional enforcement requires immediate citizen action. The time for public input ends with the commencement of negotiations on September 15, 2025. Contact your elected representatives and health authorities to demand rejection of international frameworks that transform voluntary recommendations into mandatory domestic obligations without constitutional oversight.

The stakes could not be higher. The choice could not be clearer. The time could not be shorter.

Share

Subscribe now

Support IOJ in Health Freedom Movement

We promise we have working tirelessly for the past 5 years collecting judicial evidence between international jurisdictions and every bit of support is being used for the benefit of the people and the legal proceedings. Our record and history of winning against tyranny in the supreme court is because of all of the previous help and support from our amazing supporters! We’re not finished yet! Lets keep winning together and exposing them for who they are!
Are you willing to donate a $1000.00 or more? Thank you!

Leave a comment

Things are coming to a head on the WHO Pandemic Treaty, which was ADOPTED and is awaiting the finalization of PABS.

THIS IS A HUGE DEAL FOLKS - ONCE ITS LOCKED IN, ITS LOCKSTEP.

The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) framework scheduled for World Health Organization negotiation September 15-19, 2025 represents the most significant threat to constitutional governance and individual rights in modern international law.

Under PABS, pharmaceutical manufacturers would face mandatory obligations to contribute "20 percent of their real-time production of safe, quality and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics" to WHO distribution during declared emergencies, creating binding international requirements that systematically override national regulatory determinations and constitutional protections.

This framework emerges NOW, precisely as domestic authorities acknowledge fundamental failures in experimental medical programs, a mission close to our hearts.

Secretary Kennedy's August 27th decision to withdraw mRNA product recommendations for healthy populations while maintaining identical interventions for vulnerable demographics exposes the systematic contradictions underlying current regulatory frameworks. PABS would institutionalize these failed systems through binding treaty obligations that transform temporary emergency measures into permanent international authority operating outside constitutional accountability mechanisms.

PABS Framework Is The Ultimate Fusion of Governmental Authority and Pharmaceutical Profits - The ULTIMATE CONFLICT FROM HELL

Sign the emergency petition opposing PABS treaty ratification before WHO negotiations begin:

suethewho.org/stoppabs

suethewho.org/stoppabs

Sue the WHO Legal Initiative (Idiot's Guide to EXIT the WHO)

SIGN NOW! FORMAL STOP PABS - DEMAND TO HALT W.H.O. INSTITUTIONALIZED HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATY

Read more

8 months ago · Interest of Justice

The proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system creates unprecedented economic incentives that explain widespread governmental support despite documented constitutional violations and systematic informed consent failures. Nations identifying and sharing pathogen samples receive financial benefits from resulting pharmaceutical products, while companies gain guaranteed international distribution channels funded through taxpayer treaty obligations rather than market accountability or safety demonstration.

Under PABS, WHO officials would gain discretionary authority to determine when "pathogen emergencies" justify activation of mandatory contribution requirements from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Manufacturers would face annual corporate fees based on their size to fund permanent PABS system operations, creating financing mechanisms for international experimental product distribution that operates outside national constitutional frameworks.

This transforms biological materials into profitable international commodities while socializing research costs through mandatory governmental participation in experimental medical programs. The framework establishes binding requirements for signatory nations to maintain permanent capacity for rapid distribution of experimental medical countermeasures during future declared emergencies, transforming temporary measures into permanent international distribution systems that bypass national regulatory review and constitutional oversight mechanisms.

Systematic Procedural Violations Are Clearly Rendering PABS Formation Legally Invalid

Documentary evidence reveals comprehensive procedural violations during PABS negotiations that render any resulting agreement juridically void under international law requirements for good faith negotiation and meaningful stakeholder participation. Multiple documented instances demonstrate systematic exclusion of developing country positions, with diplomatic sources confirming that "the Co-chair of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body tried to shut down the Africa Group's proposals" during critical PABS discussions.

These procedural irregularities violate established diplomatic protocols governing treaty formation and contradict Vienna Convention requirements for legitimate international agreement formation. The systematic exclusion of stakeholder proposals represents content-based discrimination against organizations advocating scientific methodologies or perspectives diverging from institutional preferences, rather than legitimate procedural considerations.

PABS negotiations have encountered what diplomatic sources characterize as "fundamental disagreements between countries on whether pathogen access should be linked to benefit-sharing," with developed countries including European Union member states explicitly opposing benefit-sharing linkage requirements mandated under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol. These disagreements expose constitutional impossibilities inherent in the PABS approach, where the framework assumes legitimate international emergency authority capable of overriding national constitutional protections—authority that constitutional challenges have demonstrated does not exist under established governance principles.

Vienna Convention Legal Authorities Prohibit PABS Treaty Formation

The systematic violations underlying experimental medical frameworks create fundamental legal obstacles to WHO treaty formation under established international law principles governing institutional capacity and legitimate authority. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes comprehensive requirements that cannot be satisfied when organizations demonstrate inability to defend fundamental authority claims through competent legal process.

Article 26 - Pacta Sunt Servanda Requirements: Treaties must be performed in good faith, requiring resolution of fundamental disputes regarding authority before treaty obligations can be created. WHO's systematic defaults when confronted with constitutional challenges regarding experimental medical programs demonstrate institutional incapacity to perform treaty obligations in good faith. When international organizations systematically choose silence over evidence-based response to constitutional requirements, they establish legal incapacity preventing legitimate treaty formation.

Article 46 - Internal Law Violations: States cannot be bound by treaty provisions violating internal constitutional law regarding competence to conclude treaties. Constitutional challenges across multiple jurisdictions have demonstrated systematic inability of national health authorities to provide evidence supporting experimental program authorization under constitutional scrutiny standards. This creates legal incapacity for domestic ratification of international agreements addressing such programs without violating constitutional governance requirements.

Article 48 - Fraud in Treaty Formation: Treaties procured through systematic deception regarding essential elements are void ab initio under international law. The systematic misrepresentation of experimental gene therapy interventions as traditional vaccines to circumvent informed consent requirements establishes comprehensive fraud in the foundations underlying proposed treaty formation. Recipients received no information about participation in ongoing clinical investigations, experimental genetic modification technologies, or unprecedented cellular production mechanisms.

Article 53 - Peremptory Norms Conflicts: Treaties conflicting with jus cogens norms including prohibition of non-consensual medical experimentation are automatically void. Current experimental medical frameworks systematically violate established peremptory norms governing informed consent in medical research, creating automatic invalidity for any treaty obligations institutionalizing such violations.

WHO Framework Violations and Institutional Incapacity Issues - Participation Is Lacking

The World Health Organization has demonstrated systematic violations of its own Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) that establish institutional incapacity to create binding treaty obligations. Documented censorship of scientific materials and temporal exclusion of accredited civil society organizations from formal consultative processes directly contravenes FENSA paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) regarding "transparent, open, constructive, and timely interactions" and paragraph 10 regarding "meaningful and effective participation."

WHO's institutional integration with the COVID Action Platform and World Economic Forum procurement frameworks creates systematic conflicts of interest that violate Article 37 of the WHO Constitution regarding organizational independence. The COVID Action Platform, launched by the World Economic Forum under Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab to coordinate global COVID-19 response efforts, serves as a coordinating mechanism between WHO and private sector entities including pharmaceutical companies, effectively integrating commercial interests directly into public health decision-making processes. This integration vests procurement authorities in entities with direct pecuniary interests potentially adverse to populations they purport to serve, creating structured conflicts that subordinate public health considerations to commercial imperatives while violating constitutional requirements for institutional independence and impartiality.

The implementation of shared information systems and revolving personnel arrangements between WHO and private sector entities creates institutional dependency relationships that compromise decision-making independence and violate FENSA paragraph 7(a) requirements for maintaining "WHO's integrity, independence, credibility and reputation." These systematic violations establish fundamental legal disabilities preventing legitimate treaty formation under clean hands doctrine and institutional estoppel principles.

The 4 Unresolved International WHO Disputes We Filed Create A Very Real Legal Impossibility

Critical to constitutional objections is the documented fact that WHO Internal Oversight Services formally referred fundamental authority disputes to national authorities for resolution pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of established dispute resolution procedures. These referrals remain unresolved after extensive periods, creating ongoing international disputes that must be addressed before legitimate treaty formation can proceed under Vienna Convention requirements.

Interest of Justice filed four formal disputes with WHO that persist despite systematic, documented, and procedurally proper referral through competent national authorities. These disputes, bearing specifically enumerated case identification within the WHO Office of Internal Oversight Services, were formally presented to the Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs within HHS during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 stakeholder listening sessions and subsequently documented through multiple written communications.

These disputes encompass procedural defects in International Health Regulations amendments, document censorship violations, scientific deficiencies in Emergency Use Listing procedures, and institutional integration with private sector procurement mechanisms that create systematic conflicts of interest.

Under established international law principles, states cannot legitimately ratify treaties addressing subject matter remaining under active dispute through competent national authority proceedings. When fundamental disputes regarding legal authority underlying proposed treaty obligations remain unresolved through national authority review, states lack constitutional competence necessary to enter binding international agreements addressing disputed authority without violating internal law requirements for treaty formation.

The Juridical Vacuum that Prevents Legitimate Treaty Formation - UNSETTLED WHO DISPUTES

The four unresolved disputes between the United States and WHO create more than procedural obstacles—they establish juridical vacuum that makes PABS treaty formation legally impossible under Vienna Convention requirements. When international organizations formally refer fundamental authority questions to national governments for resolution, they create ongoing international disputes that must be addressed before legitimate treaty formation can proceed.

These disputes encompass the foundational legal authority underlying the entire experimental medical framework that PABS seeks to institutionalize.

The IHR amendment violations demonstrate systematic procedural failures in WHO treaty formation processes.

The documented censorship and civil society exclusion violate WHO's own Framework of Engagement requirements.

The PCR diagnostic deficiencies establish that the scientific foundation underlying emergency declarations was systematically invalid.

The WHO-HHS regulatory integration creates geographic disparities in product classification that circumvent informed consent protections through regulatory arbitrage.

Under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention, states cannot legitimately enter treaty obligations addressing subject matter that remains under unresolved dispute through competent national authority proceedings.

WHO's referral of these IoJ disputes to national authorities while simultaneously advancing PABS negotiations creates fundamental legal contradiction—the organization seeks treaty-making authority over experimental medical programs while acknowledging that disputes regarding those same programs remain unresolved through national authority review.

This juridical vacuum prevents legitimate governmental authority to ratify PABS regardless of diplomatic consensus or international pressure. Constitutional governments cannot legally participate in treaty formation addressing disputed subject matter without violating internal law requirements for evidence-based treaty ratification and constitutional competence to conclude international agreements.

Constitutional Enforcement Is Needed NOW During This Critical Treaty Formation Window

The extended timeline for PABS negotiations creates unprecedented opportunity for constitutional enforcement during active treaty formation when legal challenges maintain maximum effectiveness for preventing ratification of agreements built upon constitutionally deficient foundations.

Diplomatic sources confirm that states cannot sign agreements until conclusion of PABS annex negotiations, with signature and ratification deferred until completion tentatively scheduled for the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026.

This timeline provides adequate opportunity for comprehensive constitutional challenges to establish legal limitations preventing ratification of agreements violating established constitutional requirements for legitimate governmental authority and individual rights protection.

Unlike challenging international agreements after signature and ratification, constitutional interventions during negotiations can establish binding legal constraints that make treaty formation legally impossible for governments operating under constitutional due process requirements.

The constitutional enforcement window requires systematic legal coordination across multiple jurisdictions to demonstrate that PABS obligations would institutionalize experimental medical programs lacking constitutional legitimacy and evidentiary foundation. Government officials facing international pressure for treaty participation need documented evidence of systematic regulatory failures and formal citizen support for constitutional compliance to resist coordinated international pressure effectively.

The Evidence Base That Drives Our Constitutional & International Law Challenges

The systematic nature of constitutional violations underlying PABS institutionalization has been revealed through comprehensive legal challenges that exposed coordinated regulatory failures across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. This evidence demonstrates why we are hell-bent on preventing PABS ratification—the framework would permanently institutionalize systematic experimental medical authority that operates through coordinated deception and constitutional circumvention.

Constitutional challenges have established that WHO Emergency Use Listing procedures operate through unauthorized coordination with Department of Defense Other Transaction Authority mechanisms, creating systematic separation of powers violations that render entire regulatory frameworks constitutionally deficient. Internal FOIA documentation confirms that required constitutional safeguards for experimental medical interventions on civilian populations were systematically bypassed through military procurement mechanisms designed for weapons development rather than civilian medical programs.

The Corman-Drosten protocol underlying WHO's Emergency Use Listing of PCR diagnostic methodologies was published in Eurosurveillance and accepted within 24 hours of submission—an extraordinary abbreviation of peer review that contravenes established scientific publication standards. Subsequent independent analysis identified ten fundamental scientific flaws in the methodology, including absence of gold standard validation, inappropriate primer design, insufficient PCR validation, and absence of standardized operating procedures.

Our research has uncovered systematic regulatory coordination between WHO's Emergency Use Listing procedures and FDA determinations that creates regulatory arbitrage where products classified as "investigational" for domestic purposes under 21 C.F.R. § 312.110(b) simultaneously receive international distribution authorization through WHO mechanisms without equivalent disclosure of experimental status. This systematic misrepresentation circumvents established protections for human subjects in experimental medical interventions while violating foundational bioethics principles established after Nuremberg.

Emergency Petition FILED: IoJ Is Creating Our Legal Record to Prevent The Treaty Formation

The emergency petition opposing PABS framework ratification creates official legal record establishing documented public objection to treaty formation lacking constitutional foundation. Government officials across multiple jurisdictions face coordinated international pressure for treaty participation despite documented constitutional violations underlying regulatory systems that would be institutionalized through PABS obligations.

Costa Rica was the first to stand up to the treaty and rejected it due to our hard work to alert them to the issues. The top government even called us to a hearing 11-11-2024 to ask our opinions on the treaty.

We told Costa Rica in no uncertain terms: DO NOT DO IT. CHOOSE YOUR PEOPLE PEOPLE OVER PATHOGEN PROFITS.

Why Formal Legal Petitions Create Binding Political Constraints

The emergency petition opposing PABS serves a fundamentally different function than advocacy campaigns or public pressure efforts. Formal legal petitions create official documentation that government officials can cite when justifying constitutional compliance over international diplomatic pressure. When thousands of citizens formally petition their representatives demanding constitutional enforcement, officials gain documented mandate that transforms abstract legal arguments into concrete political authorization for treaty rejection.

This distinction proves crucial during international negotiations where governmental representatives face coordinated pressure for treaty participation despite documented constitutional violations. Officials need more than legal arguments—they require documented citizen support that provides political legitimacy for resisting international agreements that violate established governance principles. The petition creates that documented mandate through formal legal record establishing citizen opposition to treaty obligations lacking constitutional foundation. Citizens may also use it to enforce the law and show they alerted their officials.

Government officials across multiple jurisdictions understand the constitutional problems with PABS but they really do need documented public pressure to justify rejecting international demands for treaty participation.

Every signature on the petition strengthens the legal record that government officials can utilize to justify constitutional compliance over international pressure during critical treaty negotiation periods. When thousands of citizens formally petition government representatives demanding constitutional enforcement, officials gain documented foundation for rejecting treaty obligations that violate established legal principles governing legitimate governmental authority and individual rights protection.

We have had many SUCCESSFUL campaigns so lets keep going and writing in our wishes and doing our best to be heard in time to make a difference!

The Final Window Determines Humanities Victory or if WHO & Pandemic Treaty Will Prevail

The September 15-19 PABS negotiations represent the absolute final intervention window before diplomatic consensus solidifies into binding international obligations that override national constitutional protections.

It’s a big deal folks.

Unlike post-ratification legal challenges that face procedural obstacles and international law presumptions favoring treaty validity, constitutional interventions during active negotiations can establish binding legal constraints that make treaty formation impossible for governments operating under constitutional due process requirements.

This window possesses unique strategic characteristics that maximize constitutional enforcement effectiveness. Government officials retain complete discretionary authority to reject treaty participation based on constitutional compliance obligations without violating existing international commitments. Diplomatic positions remain fluid, enabling sustained legal pressure to influence governmental determinations before negotiating positions become fixed through formal international commitments.

Constitutional challenges maintain maximum legal effectiveness when deployed during treaty formation periods rather than after diplomatic consensus creates presumptions favoring international agreement validity. LET’S GO!!! ITS ONCE AGAIN OUR “GO TIME” EVERYONE!

The convergence of systematic constitutional violations with active treaty negotiations creates unprecedented opportunity for preventing permanent institutionalization of experimental medical authority through international obligations designed to circumvent national sovereignty protections.

Once PABS negotiations conclude and diplomatic consensus emerges, constitutional challenges face significantly greater procedural obstacles and reduced likelihood of preventing treaty ratification across multiple jurisdictions.

This temporal constraint explains why formal petition signature before September 15 determines whether constitutional law proves stronger than coordinated international authority seeking to institutionalize systematic circumvention of individual rights and national sovereignty.

The petition creates documented citizen mandate that government officials require to justify constitutional compliance during the critical negotiation period when resistance remains legally and politically viable.

After September 19, the intervention window closes and constitutional enforcement faces the substantially more difficult challenge of dismantling international agreements after diplomatic formation rather than preventing treaty creation through systematic legal opposition during the negotiation process.

Constitutional Action Required Before September 15 Negotiations

The PABS framework represents the ultimate test of whether constitutional governance proves stronger than coordinated authority seeking to institutionalize systematic circumvention of individual rights and national sovereignty. Every signature creates documentation that strengthens governmental resistance to international pressure for treaty obligations violating established constitutional principles and individual rights protections.

Sign the emergency petition opposing PABS treaty ratification before WHO negotiations begin:

suethewho.org/stoppabs

The constitutional enforcement window closes with treaty formation completion in May 2026. Government officials require documented evidence of systematic regulatory failures and formal citizen support for constitutional compliance to resist international pressure for agreements that would make experimental medical authority permanently legal through binding treaty obligations designed to circumvent national sovereignty protections and constitutional accountability mechanisms.

The critical September negotiations approach in eighteen days. The evidence is comprehensive. The constitutional tools are available here for free - we got you EVERYTHING you need. The intervention window is open. You are needed!

PABS negotiations begin September 15th seeking to institutionalize experimental medical programs that regulatory authorities cannot defend under constitutional scrutiny. The emergency petition creates formal legal record supporting governmental constitutional resistance to treaty lacking legitimate evidentiary foundation.

Constitutional law provides the tools. Citizen participation provides the power. Sustained coordination provides the strategy.

The race for constitutional victory has begun. Glad you are part of this historical CRUSHING OF THE DREAMS OF PHARMA-WHO-REGULATOR TYRANTS!

Interest of Justice: Defending Constitutional Governance Against Treaty-Based Circumvention

REMEMBER: “The framework establishes binding requirements for signatory nations to maintain permanent capacity for rapid distribution of experimental medical countermeasures during future declared emergencies, transforming temporary measures into permanent international distribution systems that bypass national regulatory review and constitutional oversight mechanisms”

Share

Leave a comment

Other Related Articles:

James Roguski

Stop the PABS Negotiations

SHARE THIS LINK: https://NoPABS.com…

Read more

8 months ago · 124 likes · 12 comments · James Roguski

Interest of Justice Initiates Unprecedented International Legal Enforcement Action Under Peremptory Norms of International Law

A comprehensive analysis of our evolving legal strategy to invalidate procedurally defective International Health Regulations amendments through systematic application of Vienna Convention principles and jus cogens enforcement mechanisms

Sign the Notice of Default to all Member Countries who are still participating!!

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/notice-and-duty-to-formally-submit-written-rejection-of-ihr-amendments/

These actions take a very long time and if you think we are doing a good job we appreciate all the support you can give. It is through generosity of people like you that we can keep remaining of service - blessings to the angels who support our work! We appreciate you!

Share

Make A Generous Donation

Executive Summary: The Legal Architecture of Our Challenge

Today marks a watershed moment in international health governance law. Interest of Justice has escalated our comprehensive legal challenge against the procedurally invalid 2022 and 2024 International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments to the level of formal Notice of Default under peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) and obligations erga omnes—the highest category of binding international legal obligations that create duties owed to the entire international community.

This escalation represents the natural legal progression following our meticulously documented Notice of Claim and Dispute filed April 5, 2025, and subsequent Comprehensive Risk Report transmitted May 27, 2025, both of which established prima facie evidence of fundamental procedural violations that render the disputed amendments "procedurally null and void ab initio" under controlling international treaty law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

The legal significance of this development cannot be overstated: we are now formally invoking the most powerful enforcement mechanisms available under international law, creating binding obligations upon all 194 WHO Member States to immediately cease implementation of legally void instruments or face potential individual and collective liability under established principles of state responsibility and treaty law.

The Administrative Record: Building an Unassailable Legal Foundation

Our legal strategy has been constructed methodically over months of intensive research, analysis, and formal documentation designed to create an administrative record that would satisfy the evidentiary requirements of any international tribunal while simultaneously establishing clear procedural grounds for immediate relief under existing legal frameworks.

April 5, 2025: The Initial Notice of Claim and Dispute

Notice Of Claim April 6, 2025

851KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Our foundational legal communication, designated Reference IOJ/IHR/2025-04-5, was transmitted simultaneously to all 194 WHO Member States including the Holy See through established diplomatic channels in accordance with Articles 55 and 56 of the International Health Regulations and Article 75 of the WHO Constitution. This comprehensive 16-page legal analysis, supported by extensive annexes containing documentary evidence, video recordings, and expert legal opinions, established three fundamental categories of procedural violations:

1. Temporal Violations of Article 55(2): The Director-General's transmission of 2024 amendment texts on February 20, 2024—exactly three months prior to the 77th World Health Assembly opening on May 20, 2024—constituted a manifest violation of the mandatory four-month notice period. Our analysis demonstrated that this temporal requirement has attained jus cogens status through consistent state practice spanning over five decades, making any deviation a violation of peremptory international law.

2. Procedural Violations of WHO Rule 85: Video evidence conclusively established that Committee A proceedings during the 75th World Health Assembly on May 27, 2022, failed to verify the presence of a majority quorum as mandated by Rule 85 of the WHO Rules of Procedure. No formal vote was conducted as required by Article 73, rendering the purported adoption procedurally void under Article 46 of the Vienna Convention as a "manifest violation of a rule of internal law of fundamental importance."

3. Ultra Vires Institutional Actions: The amendments exceed WHO's constitutional authority under its founding documents, creating obligations that the organization lacks legal capacity to impose and that Member States lack constitutional authority to implement without proper legislative ratification processes.

May 27, 2025: The Comprehensive Risk Report

May 27, 2025 Risk Report Ihr

737KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Our second major filing constituted a 24-page systematic analysis of the catastrophic legal, financial, and constitutional risks created by continued implementation of procedurally invalid instruments. This report, incorporating quantitative risk modeling, actuarial analysis, and comprehensive assessment of liability exposure, documented that Member States face potential damages ranging from $500 billion to $2 trillion over a ten-year implementation period, with smaller nations facing exposure equivalent to 50% of annual GDP—levels historically associated with sovereign debt crises.

The Risk Report further established that WHO's regulatory authority collapsed entirely following U.S. withdrawal, leaving the organization without any independent capacity to evaluate product safety or efficacy. This regulatory vacuum means that Member States implementing WHO recommendations assume unlimited liability for products that have received no meaningful regulatory review—a situation that violates fundamental principles of due process and constitutional governance.

The Notice of Default: Invoking Maximum Legal Pressure

The formal Notice of Default served today represents the culmination of our legal strategy and the activation of the most powerful enforcement mechanisms available under international law. This document, grounded in Vienna Convention Articles 46, 53, 64, and 69, formally invokes the doctrine of jus cogens violations creating obligations erga omnes—legal obligations owed to the international community as a whole that cannot be waived, modified, or ignored by individual states.

Legal Foundation and Enforcement Theory

Our enforcement strategy rests upon the established principle, confirmed by the International Court of Justice in Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria [2002] ICJ Rep 303, ¶ 265, that procedural requirements for treaty modification constitute "rules of fundamental importance" whose violation renders resulting instruments void ab initio. When such violations occur, they create what international law terms "situations that must not be recognized"—circumstances so fundamentally contrary to international legal order that all states have affirmative duties to refuse recognition and implementation.

The Notice of Default formally establishes that the procedural violations documented in our administrative record have created precisely such a situation. Member States continuing to implement the invalid amendments are now in formal default of their obligations under:

• Article 41(2) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility: Prohibiting recognition of situations created by serious breaches of jus cogens

• Article 71(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention: Requiring elimination of consequences of acts performed in reliance upon void treaty provisions

• Customary international law principles: Governing the duty of non-recognition of illegal situations

Immediate Legal Consequences

The Notice creates immediate legal consequences for Member States, including:

1. Formal Default Status: States that fail to respond within thirty days are in documented violation of their international legal obligations

2. Individual Liability Exposure: Government officials implementing void instruments face potential personal civil and criminal liability under domestic law

3. State Responsibility: Continued implementation creates grounds for claims under international law for violations of jus cogens obligations

4. Institutional Consequences: Non-compliance affects states' standing in future treaty-making processes

The Trump Administration Default: Strategic Implications for Global Enforcement

July 17, 2025 Urgent Presidential Communication Under Diplomatic International Relations

603KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A development of particular strategic significance in our legal enforcement campaign has been the documented failure of the Trump administration to respond substantively to our comprehensive legal communications, despite President Trump's explicit withdrawal from WHO and proclaimed commitment to American sovereignty. This default carries profound implications for our global enforcement strategy and demonstrates that even administrations rhetorically opposed to WHO overreach have failed to implement the rigorous legal framework necessary to prevent institutional capture and procedural violations.

Legal Obligations Despite WHO Withdrawal

While the United States formally withdrew from WHO effective January 21, 2025, this withdrawal does not absolve the U.S. government of fundamental obligations under customary international law and the Vienna Convention regarding recognition of void treaty instruments. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention establishes that states must refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of treaties even after withdrawal, and Articles 53 and 64 create non-derogable obligations regarding jus cogens violations that persist regardless of organizational membership status.

Accordingly, Interest of Justice served formal legal notice upon President Donald J. Trump and his administration, demanding explicit acknowledgment of the procedural nullity of the 2022 and 2024 IHR amendments and implementation of comprehensive safeguards to prevent any residual coordination with WHO mechanisms that might perpetuate recognition of void instruments. This notice was transmitted through established diplomatic channels with specific attention to the constitutional requirements of executive branch treaty compliance and the separation of powers implications of implementing internationally void legal instruments.

The RFK Jr. Default: Institutional Capture Across Administrations

July 17, 2025 Ihr Notice Of Default Under International Law

488KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The failure of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, to provide any substantive response to our legal communications represents a particularly damaging form of institutional default that demonstrates how administrative capture persists across political transitions. Secretary Kennedy, who has publicly advocated for health freedom and opposition to pharmaceutical industry influence, nonetheless failed to engage with our comprehensive documentation of WHO's regulatory collapse and the catastrophic liability exposure created by continued reliance on void institutional frameworks.

This default is legally significant because it demonstrates that even officials with proclaimed skepticism toward international health governance have failed to implement the systematic legal and administrative reforms necessary to protect American sovereignty and constitutional governance. The absence of any response from Secretary Kennedy's office suggests either: (1) continued institutional inertia favoring WHO coordination despite official withdrawal; (2) lack of adequate legal analysis within HHS regarding the implications of void treaty instruments; or (3) political calculation that avoiding engagement is preferable to acknowledging the comprehensive failures documented in our administrative record.

Each of these possibilities creates additional grounds for legal enforcement and demonstrates why our multi-jurisdictional strategy must encompass even ostensibly sympathetic administrations that fail to implement comprehensive legal safeguards against institutional capture.

Strategic Implications for Global Enforcement

The Trump administration's default carries strategic implications that extend far beyond U.S. policy to encompass our global enforcement campaign:

1. Precedential Effect: If even an administration explicitly opposed to WHO can be documented as failing to implement comprehensive legal safeguards, this strengthens our arguments that institutional capture and procedural violations represent systemic rather than partisan failures requiring judicial rather than political remedies.

2. Enhanced Liability Arguments: The failure of health freedom advocates like Secretary Kennedy to respond to our liability documentation suggests either that our analysis is so comprehensive as to be legally unanswerable, or that political considerations override legal obligations—both of which strengthen our judicial enforcement arguments.

3. Bi-Partisan Legal Coalition Potential: Demonstrating that procedural violations and institutional capture affect administrations across the political spectrum enables coalition-building with constitutional law advocates regardless of partisan affiliation, focusing attention on systemic legal defects rather than policy preferences.

4. Urgency of Judicial Enforcement: The failure of even sympathetic political leadership to implement adequate safeguards demonstrates why judicial enforcement through domestic constitutional challenges and international dispute resolution mechanisms represents the only reliable path to comprehensive remediation.

Comprehensive Enforcement Mechanisms: The Path to Legal Victory

International Legal Proceedings

1. Formal Dispute Resolution Under Article 56 IHR: We are prepared to initiate formal proceedings under the International Health Regulations' dispute resolution mechanism, which provides for graduated escalation through negotiation, Director-General mediation, and ultimately arbitration or International Court of Justice proceedings. While WHO has historically avoided engaging with these mechanisms, our comprehensive documentation makes evasion increasingly difficult.

2. Advisory Proceedings Before International Tribunals: We are exploring requests for advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice concerning the legal validity of the disputed amendments. Such proceedings, while non-binding, carry enormous persuasive authority and would force comprehensive international legal examination of our procedural nullity arguments.

3. Regional Human Rights Mechanisms: The amendments' provisions for digital surveillance, movement restrictions, and censorship create clear violations of fundamental rights protected under regional human rights instruments. We are coordinating with partners to file complaints before the European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Domestic Constitutional Challenges

Strategic Litigation Program: Our legal team is coordinating with constitutional law experts in multiple jurisdictions to challenge implementation of the invalid amendments through domestic courts. These challenges focus on:

• Separation of Powers Violations: Implementation without proper legislative ratification

• Constitutional Rights Infringements: Restrictions on movement, assembly, and privacy rights

• Due Process Violations: Implementation of measures lacking valid legal foundation

• Federalism Concerns: Federal overreach into state/provincial health authorities

The advantage of this multi-jurisdictional approach is that success in any major constitutional court creates precedent and political pressure that affects implementation globally.

Financial and Economic Pressure

Liability Documentation and Insurance Industry Engagement: We are working with actuarial experts and insurance industry professionals to document the massive liability exposure created by implementation of invalid amendments. This includes:

• Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Quantifying potential damages from implementing inadequately reviewed products

• Insurance Industry Alerts: Informing underwriters of the liability risks created by implementation

• Credit Rating Implications: Documenting how contingent liabilities affect sovereign debt ratings

This economic pressure operates independently of formal legal proceedings but creates powerful incentives for compliance with our demands.

The Remedy: Complete Nullification and Constitutional Restoration

Our legal strategy seeks comprehensive remediation that goes beyond merely stopping implementation of the invalid amendments to require active restoration of the constitutional and legal order that existed prior to their adoption.

Immediate Relief Demanded

1. Formal Declarations of Non-Recognition: All Member States must issue diplomatic notifications declaring the amendments procedurally invalid and legally void ab initio.

2. Complete Implementation Suspension: Immediate cessation of all domestic legislation, regulations, policies, and administrative actions undertaken in reliance upon the invalid amendments.

3. Withdrawal from Adoption Processes: Termination of participation in any processes aimed at implementing, enforcing, or promoting adoption of the invalid amendments.

Comprehensive Remediation Required

1. Legislative Remediation: Enactment of domestic legislation confirming that procedurally invalid international instruments create no binding obligations and cannot override constitutional requirements.

2. Administrative Review and Correction: Systematic review of all health-related policies to identify and eliminate provisions based upon void amendments.

3. Restitution In Integrum: Complete restoration of the legal position that would have existed absent the violations, including compensation for damages caused by implementation of invalid instruments.

Prospective Safeguards

1. Enhanced Procedural Scrutiny: Establishment of robust domestic procedures for reviewing international health instruments to prevent future implementation of procedurally defective agreements.

2. Constitutional Protection Mechanisms: Ensuring that fundamental rights protections cannot be circumvented through implementation of international health measures lacking valid legal foundation.

3. Democratic Accountability Requirements: Mandatory legislative approval for international health agreements affecting fundamental rights or creating binding domestic obligations.

Resource Requirements and Implementation Timeline

The comprehensive nature of our legal challenge requires substantial financial resources and sustained effort over multiple years to achieve complete victory. International legal proceedings operate on extended timelines that demand patience, persistence, and adequate funding to maintain pressure across multiple forums simultaneously.

Financial Requirements for Success

Immediate Funding Needs ($500,000-$750,000):

• International Legal Representation: Retaining qualified counsel admitted to practice before international tribunals

• Expert Witness Preparation: Engaging constitutional law scholars, international law experts, and regulatory specialists

• Document Translation and Filing: Preparing materials in multiple languages for various jurisdictions

• Administrative and Coordination Costs: Managing complex multi-jurisdictional proceedings

Medium-Term Expansion ($1.5-$3 Million):

• Domestic Constitutional Challenges: Supporting litigation in 10-15 key jurisdictions

• Expert Economic Analysis: Comprehensive actuarial and financial modeling of liability exposure

• International Advocacy and Coordination: Building coalitions with like-minded organizations globally

• Public Education and Awareness: Ensuring civil society understands the stakes and legal developments

Long-Term Strategic Investment ($5-$10 Million):

• Sustained Multi-Year Litigation: International proceedings can extend 3-7 years with multiple appeal levels

• Global Coordination Infrastructure: Supporting partners in regions where direct action is constrained

• Institutional Reform Advocacy: Building alternative frameworks for international health cooperation

• Academic and Research Support: Developing scholarly foundation for long-term legal and policy reforms

Timeline for Legal Victory

Phase 1: Immediate Pressure (6-12 months): Focus on documenting formal default by Member States and initiating domestic constitutional challenges in jurisdictions with expedited procedures. Success metrics include formal declarations of non-recognition by key states and preliminary injunctions against implementation.

Phase 2: International Proceedings (18-36 months): Formal dispute resolution under Article 56 IHR and advisory proceedings before international tribunals. These proceedings typically require 18-30 months for initial decisions, with potential appeals extending timelines significantly.

Phase 3: Comprehensive Victory (3-5 years): Complete nullification of the invalid amendments, establishment of protective constitutional precedents, and implementation of alternative frameworks for international health cooperation based on sovereignty and democratic accountability.

Phase 4: Institutional Reform (5-10 years): Long-term transformation of international health governance to prevent recurrence of the systematic failures that enabled the current crisis.

Success Indicators and Milestones

• Short-term: Formal declarations of non-recognition by 10+ Member States within 6 months

• Medium-term: Favorable constitutional court decisions in 3+ major jurisdictions within 24 months

• Long-term: Complete withdrawal of invalid amendments and adoption of sovereignty-respecting alternatives within 5 years

The Stakes: Why Victory Is Essential

The importance of our legal challenge extends far beyond the specific provisions of the IHR amendments to encompass fundamental questions about the future of democratic governance, constitutional sovereignty, and individual liberty in an increasingly interconnected world.

Constitutional and Democratic Implications

If procedurally invalid international instruments can be implemented without consequences, the entire foundation of constitutional government is undermined. Democratic societies depend upon the principle that government power must be exercised within clear legal constraints and with proper authorization. Allowing WHO to bypass fundamental procedural requirements sets a precedent that would enable future expansions of unaccountable international authority across every domain of human activity.

Economic and Financial Consequences

The liability exposure created by implementing inadequately reviewed products based on WHO recommendations could trigger sovereign debt crises in multiple countries simultaneously. Our economic modeling suggests that smaller nations face existential financial threats that could destabilize entire regions. Preventing this economic catastrophe requires immediate cessation of implementation and establishment of proper liability allocation mechanisms.

Human Rights and Individual Liberty

The amendments' provisions for digital surveillance, movement restrictions, and censorship create infrastructure for comprehensive social control that extends far beyond legitimate public health measures. Once established, these systems will inevitably expand beyond health to encompass all aspects of human activity. Our legal challenge represents perhaps the last opportunity to prevent institutionalization of global surveillance and control mechanisms.

How You Can Support This Critical Legal Battle

The success of our legal challenge depends upon sustained support from individuals and organizations who understand the stakes and are willing to invest in protecting constitutional governance and individual liberty for future generations.

Financial Support: The Foundation of Legal Victory

Direct Contributions: Tax-deductible donations support immediate legal expenses and enable rapid response to emerging opportunities and threats. Every contribution, regardless of size, enables us to maintain pressure across multiple legal forums simultaneously.

Sustaining Membership: Monthly recurring contributions provide the stable funding base necessary for multi-year legal proceedings. International litigation requires sustained effort over extended periods, making predictable funding essential for strategic planning.

Major Gift Opportunities: Larger contributions enable strategic initiatives including international expert witness engagement, comprehensive economic analysis, and coordination with partners in multiple jurisdictions.

Non-Financial Support: Building the Movement

Information Sharing: Distributing our legal analysis and updates through social media, email lists, and personal networks helps build awareness and pressure for compliance with our demands.

Political Engagement: Contacting elected representatives at all levels to express support for our legal positions and opposition to implementation of invalid amendments.

Professional Networks: Engaging legal, medical, and academic colleagues to review our analysis and provide expert validation of our positions.

Civil Society Coordination: Working with local organizations to build coalitions supporting constitutional governance and opposing unaccountable international authority.

Regional Coordination Opportunities

We are actively seeking partners in key jurisdictions who can coordinate domestic legal challenges, legislative advocacy, and public education efforts. Particular priorities include:

• European Union: Coordination with constitutional courts and human rights advocates

• Commonwealth Nations: Leveraging shared legal traditions and constitutional principles

• Federal Systems: Engaging state/provincial governments as constitutional backstops against federal overreach

• Developing Nations: Supporting sovereignty-focused civil society organizations

Conclusion: The Moment of Historic Decision

We stand at an inflection point in human history. The decisions made in the coming months will determine whether future generations inherit democratic self-governance and constitutional protections, or whether they will live under the shadow of unaccountable global governance with unprecedented powers of surveillance and control.

Our comprehensive legal challenge represents the most sophisticated and well-documented effort to preserve constitutional sovereignty and democratic accountability in the face of expanding international authority. The administrative record we have created, the legal arguments we have developed, and the enforcement mechanisms we are activating provide the strongest possible foundation for legal victory.

But success requires resources, persistence, and sustained support from individuals and organizations who understand that the stakes extend far beyond health policy to encompass the fundamental structure of human governance. The window for effective action is narrow and closing rapidly.

We invite you to join this historic legal battle not merely as observers but as active participants in preserving constitutional governance and individual liberty for future generations. The choice before us is clear: act now with courage and determination, or accept permanent subordination to unaccountable international authority.

The future of human freedom hangs in the balance. History will record whether we had the courage to act when action was still possible.

Together, we can win this fight. But only together.

Share

These actions take a very long time and if you think we are doing a good job we appreciate all the support you can give. It is through generosity of people like you that we can keep remaining of service - blessings to the angels who support our work! We appreciate you!

Make A Generous Donation

Leave a comment

Interest of Justice takes immense pride in our role as integral participants within a sophisticated international coalition of constitutional law advocates and sovereignty defenders operating continuously across multiple jurisdictions and time zones in coordinated resistance to the systematic erosion of democratic governance through procedurally invalid international instruments. This coalition, comprising legal experts, constitutional scholars, civil society organizations, and government officials committed to the rule of law, represents perhaps the most comprehensive and technically sophisticated challenge to supranational overreach in the modern era.

Our strategic partnership with leading advocates in Israel (thanks to James Roguski’s tireless work) deserves particular recognition, as Israeli legal experts have demonstrated exceptional leadership in developing the theoretical and practical frameworks for challenging the procedural validity of the disputed IHR amendments. Working in coordination with our Israeli partners, who have spearheaded groundbreaking legal analysis of treaty invalidation under Vienna Convention principles, Interest of Justice has been able to develop and implement enforcement strategies that leverage the unique jurisdictional and constitutional characteristics of multiple legal systems simultaneously, including the DEFAULT in United States named in this post.

The State of Israel's anticipated formal withdrawal from the procedurally invalid IHR amendments, as detailed in our comprehensive analysis available at Israel Will Withdraw from IHR Amendments, represents a watershed moment in international legal resistance to WHO overreach and provides crucial precedential foundation for our global enforcement strategy.

For more information about our legal strategy, to support our work financially, or to coordinate regional efforts, visit www.interestofjustice.org or contact us directly at contact@interestofjustice.org.

Interest of Justice is an International Civil Society Organization recognized as stakeholders by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and actively engaged in defending constitutional governance and human rights in global health governance.

JOIN ISRAEL, THE UNITED STATES AND ARGENTINA IN EXITING THE WHO AND ESTABLISHING A NEW RESPONSIVE GLOBAL HEALTH COOPERATIVE

Click and Sign:

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/exitwho/

The Global Revolt Against WHO Overreach: Why Nations Are Reclaiming Their Health Sovereignty From Big Pharma’s Big Business Takeover And More Un Ethical Experimentation

A Critical Moment for National Independence

As we approach the July 19, 2025 deadline for nations to reject the World Health Organization's sweeping new amendments to the International Health Regulations, a remarkable pattern has emerged. From Washington to Warsaw, from Jerusalem to Buenos Aires, nations across the globe are standing up to protect their sovereignty against unprecedented WHO overreach. What began as scattered resistance has transformed into a coordinated defense of democratic self-governance in health policy.

The stakes could not be higher. These amendments, rushed through in violation of WHO's own procedural rules, would fundamentally transform the relationship between sovereign nations and an unelected international bureaucracy. The time for action is now.

Understanding the WHO Power Grab

The World Health Organization has advanced two distinct but complementary instruments designed to centralize global health governance under its control. First, the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 Amendments, adopted on June 1, 2024, introduce sweeping changes that would grant the WHO Director-General unprecedented authority to declare "pandemic emergencies" and direct national responses. These amendments strategically remove "non-binding" language from WHO recommendations, creating a framework for mandatory compliance.

Second, the WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted May 20, 2025, establishes mechanisms for forced pharmaceutical production sharing and technology transfers. This treaty requires companies to surrender 20% of their pandemic-related products to WHO control and demands the sharing of proprietary technologies—in our opinion, a direct assault on intellectual property rights and free market principles.

Together, these instruments represent the most aggressive expansion of international health authority in history. They would transform WHO from an advisory body into a de facto global health legislator with enforcement powers that supersede national constitutions and democratic processes.

The United States led the charge for sovereignty when President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, completely withdrawing from the WHO. This decisive action recognized what many nations now understand: the organization's mismanagement of COVID-19 and its increasing politicization have rendered it unfit to dictate health policies to sovereign nations.

Israel, while not formally withdrawing yet, also sent a powerful message by abstaining from the Pandemic Agreement vote alongside ten other nations including Poland, Italy, Russia, and Slovakia. This abstention reflects deep concerns about surrendering national health decision-making to an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated bias and incompetence.

Argentina, under President Milei's leadership, has initiated withdrawal proceedings, recognizing that true health security comes from national self-determination, not international bureaucracy. Meanwhile, formal rejections of earlier amendments have come from Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Slovakia—a diverse coalition united by the principle that health decisions should be made by elected governments, not distant bureaucrats.

The Constitutional Crisis No One Is Discussing

The procedural violations surrounding these amendments reveal WHO's contempt for legitimate governance. The 2024 amendments were negotiated in under three years with merely four months' notice—a direct violation of IHR Article 55.2, which requires four years for such fundamental changes. Documents were allegedly manipulated to present new articles as existing text, deceiving member states about the scope of changes.

Even more alarming, the amendments reduce the rejection period for future changes from 18 months to just 10 months, creating a mechanism for WHO to continuously expand its powers with diminished opportunity for democratic opposition. The Pandemic Agreement explicitly prohibits reservations, meaning nations must accept every provision wholesale or reject the entire framework—a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum that mocks the principle of negotiated international agreements.

The Economic Sovereignty Threat

Beyond the constitutional concerns lies an economic power grab of staggering proportions. The new "coordinating financial mechanism" creates open-ended financial obligations without any cost estimates or budgetary limits. Nations would be committing to blank checks written by WHO bureaucrats.

The mandatory technology transfer provisions and the requirement for pharmaceutical companies to surrender 20% of production represent a fundamental attack on property rights and market economics. These provisions would devastate innovation incentives precisely when we need pharmaceutical advancement most. Why would companies invest billions in research if they must surrender their discoveries and a fifth of their production to international bureaucrats?

Human Rights Under Siege

Perhaps most chilling are the human rights implications. The amendments grant WHO unprecedented powers over individual liberties, including:

The authority to implement digital health certificates that could restrict movement and access to services based on compliance with WHO directives. The power to combat "infodemics"—a euphemism for censoring any information that contradicts WHO narratives, regardless of its accuracy or scientific merit. The ability to override informed consent principles in the name of pandemic response. The framework for mandatory medical interventions decided not by patients and their doctors, but by international committees.

These powers would transform WHO from a health advisory body into an enforcer of medical mandates, trampling centuries of progress in medical ethics and individual rights.

As the July 19 deadline approaches, the resistance grows stronger. Parliamentary challenges have emerged in Estonia, the Philippines, South Africa, Japan, Canada, and Australia. The European Union faces internal dissent as member states recognize the threat to their sovereignty. Civil society organizations worldwide are mobilizing to demand their governments reject these amendments.

This is not a partisan issue. The coalition opposing WHO overreach spans the political spectrum, united by the fundamental principle that health decisions affecting citizens should be made by governments accountable to those citizens, not by unelected international bureaucrats with no democratic mandate.

Why Your We Must Act Now! And if you haven’t signed the Notice And Demand Yet, Please do so now and sign the demand given above!

Every nation that fails to reject these amendments by July 19, 2025, will have surrendered a piece of its dignity that may prove impossible to reclaim. Once these mechanisms are in place, WHO will have the power to continuously expand its authority with reduced ability for nations to resist.

The choice is stark but clear. Nations can either maintain their sovereign right to determine health policies based on their unique circumstances, values, and democratic processes, or they can subordinate themselves to an international organization that has proven itself politically compromised, procedurally corrupt, and practically incompetent.

The United States, Argentina, and others have shown the way forward. Israel and ten other nations have signaled their deep reservations. Four countries have formally rejected previous amendments, with more preparing to follow. This is not isolation—it is the assertion of fundamental democratic principles against bureaucratic overreach.

If you value national sovereignty, democratic governance, and individual liberty, the time to act is now. Contact your representatives, your health ministers, your heads of state. Demand they follow “The Lead of Nations” courageous enough to say no to WHO overreach. Share this information with your networks. Make your voice heard before the July 19 deadline passes and these amendments automatically take effect.

The question before every nation is simple: Will you govern your own health policies through democratic processes, or will you surrender that authority to an unaccountable international bureaucracy? The United States has given its answer. Israel has signaled its concerns. Argentina is taking action.

Now it is time for your nation to join the global movement to preserve health sovereignty. The deadline approaches. The choice is yours. Choose sovereignty. Choose democracy. Choose freedom.

The WHO regulations in question

There are two distinct WHO initiatives that countries are responding to:

1. International Health Regulations (IHR) 2024 Amendments

• Adopted June 1, 2024 by consensus at the 77th World Health Assembly

• Introduces definitions for "pandemic emergency" as highest alert level

• Creates new committees and financial mechanisms for pandemic preparedness

• Enters into force September 19, 2025 unless countries actively reject by July 19, 2025

2. WHO Pandemic Agreement (Treaty)

• Adopted May 20, 2025 by the 78th World Health Assembly

• Requires pharmaceutical companies to provide WHO with 20% of pandemic products

• Establishes technology transfer and benefit-sharing systems

• Cannot be signed until further negotiations complete; requires 60 ratifications to enter force

Israel's actual position and timeline

May 20, 2025: Israel abstained from the WHO Pandemic Agreement vote alongside 10 other countries (Poland, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran, Bulgaria, Egypt, Jamaica, Netherlands, Paraguay). This was not a withdrawal but an abstention from supporting the agreement.

Context of Israel-WHO tensions: In November 2023, Health Minister Bosso criticized WHO for failing to acknowledge Hamas's use of Gaza hospitals for terrorist purposes. Following the US withdrawal from WHO in January 2025, Israel's Knesset Health Committee scheduled debates about potentially following suit, driven by members of Netanyahu's Likud party and far-right coalition partners.

Countries rejecting or withdrawing from WHO regulations

Countries that formally rejected 2022 IHR amendments:

• Iran: Cited concerns about reduced timeframes for future rejections

• Netherlands: Made reservations due to lack of due process

• New Zealand: New coalition government wanted independent assessment

• Slovakia: Prime Minister announced opposition to strengthening WHO

These four countries have until March 19, 2026 to reject the 2024 amendments, while all other countries face a July 19, 2025 deadline.

Complete WHO withdrawal:

• United States: President Trump signed executive order January 20, 2025, citing WHO's "mismanagement of COVID-19"

• Argentina: President Milei initiated withdrawal process in early 2025

• Hungary and Italy: Politicians publicly debating potential withdrawal

Parliamentary opposition without formal rejection: Estonia, Philippines, South Africa, Japan, Canada, Australia, and several EU member states have seen legislative challenges or public campaigns against the amendments, though their governments haven't formally rejected them.

Timeline of global responses

2022: Initial IHR amendments adopted in May; four countries reject by November

2024:

• June 1: New IHR amendments adopted

• September 19: WHO notifies all member states

2025:

• January 20: US withdraws from WHO

• May 20: Pandemic Agreement adopted (11 abstentions)

• July 19: Deadline for most countries to reject IHR amendments

• September 19: IHR amendments enter force for non-rejecting countries

2026:

• March 19: Deadline for the four 2022-rejecting countries

• September 19: Amendments enter force for those countries

Primary concerns driving rejections

Countries rejecting these WHO initiatives cite remarkably consistent concerns across five major categories:

Sovereignty and constitutional issues form the core objection. Nations fear that removing "non-binding" language from WHO recommendations could transfer decision-making authority from elected governments to the WHO Director-General, particularly during emergencies. Many cite direct conflicts with their constitutions and worry about WHO becoming a "global health legislator" without democratic accountability.

Procedural violations have galvanized opposition. Critics note the 2024 amendments were negotiated in under three years with just four months' notice - violating IHR Article 55.2 requirements. The Netherlands specifically cited these due process failures. Documents allegedly presented new articles in plain text to disguise them as existing provisions.

Economic burdens remain undefined. The new "coordinating financial mechanism" creates open-ended commitments without cost estimates. Requirements for manufacturers to provide 20% of production to WHO and mandatory technology transfers raise concerns about property rights and market interference.

Enforcement mechanisms worry many governments. The amendments would grant WHO's Director-General power to declare "pandemic emergencies" unilaterally, with countries having reduced time (10 months instead of 18) to reject future amendments. The pandemic treaty explicitly prohibits reservations, preventing countries from modifying terms.

Human rights and civil liberties concerns include potential violations of informed consent, privacy rights through digital health certificates, freedom of movement restrictions, and WHO's "infodemic management" powers to combat what it deems "misinformation" - raising free speech concerns.

Current global status

As of July 2025, the situation remains fluid. The IHR 2024 amendments were adopted by consensus but face a critical juncture with the July 19, 2025 rejection deadline approaching. The Pandemic Agreement cannot proceed to signature until additional negotiations complete.

Key numbers:

• 196 total IHR States Parties (194 WHO members plus Liechtenstein and Holy See)

• 4 countries formally rejected 2022 amendments

• 11 countries abstained from Pandemic Agreement

• 1 major country (US) completely withdrew from WHO

• Multiple countries have active parliamentary challenges

The pattern reveals a significant minority actively resisting WHO's expanded authority, led by the US withdrawal but spanning diverse political systems. Common themes include protecting national sovereignty, demanding democratic oversight, ensuring constitutional compliance, and preventing unaccountable international bureaucracies from directing domestic health policies.

Conclusion

While Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso recently announced a withdrawal, Israel's abstention from the WHO Pandemic Agreement reflects broader global tensions about international health governance. The approaching July 19, 2025 deadline for rejecting IHR amendments represents a pivotal moment where additional countries may formalize their opposition. The fundamental tension between coordinated pandemic response and national sovereignty remains unresolved, with countries increasingly choosing to preserve domestic control over health policies rather than cede authority to international bodies.

Share

For continuous updates on the global resistance to WHO overreach and actionable steps you can take to protect your nation's sovereignty, subscribe to our newsletter. Time is running out, but together, we can ensure health decisions remain where they belong—in the hands of democratically accountable governments, not international bureaucrats.

Donate

Leave a comment

Share

"The WHO often acts like it has forgotten that its members must remain accountable to their own citizens, and not to transnational or corporate interests." - Sec. Kennedy

WHA: We are holding WHO Accountable

OK Secretary Kennedy, it’s on like Donkey Kong. We here at IoJ have 4 unsettled WHO disputes referred to National Authorities about to hit your desk, and we are so incredibly HAPPY you remember and know that it is INDEED the MEMBER STATES of WHO that ultimately ARE RESPONSIBLE for WHO’s mismanagement of covid [which never even existed].

Full Statement by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. transcribed below

Subscribe now

Please support IoJ v WHO RIGHT NOW - TODAY - with a generous contribution if you are in the position to chip in for non profit legal fees - it’s overdue! It’s time to SUE - THIS ARTICLE IS A BIG REASON FOR THE TIME BEING PERFECT TO STRIKE HARD!

This is really awesome news that RFK Jr says he wants to hold WHO ACCOUNTABLE?

OK, HOW ABOUT holding WHO accountable for the global PCR AND VAX FRAUD???? - OUR CASES ARE ALREADY REFERRED FROM THE WHO LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO MEMBER STATES like USA!

Support IoJ v WHO on RFK's Desk

LET’S GO full steam everyone! This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY we can’t let pass us!

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Regarding the Withdrawal from the World Health Organization

Produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

To my colleagues in public health:

I’m Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary. As you know, President Trump has made the decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization.

I’d like to take this opportunity to offer some background to that decision—and more importantly—to chart a future path toward global cooperation on health and health security.

Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest, and international power politics.

While the United States has provided the lion’s share of the organization’s funding historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public.

This all became obvious during the COVID pandemic, when the WHO—under pressure from China—suppressed reports at critical junctures of human-to-human transmission and then worked with China to promote the fiction that COVID originated from bats or pangolins rather than from Chinese government-sponsored research at a BSL lab in Wuhan.

Not only has the WHO capitulated to political pressure from China, it’s also failed to maintain an organization characterized by transparency and fair governance—by and for its member states.

The WHO often acts like it has forgotten that its members must remain accountable to their own citizens, and not to transnational or corporate interests.

Now, I believe that for the most part, the staff of the WHO are conscientious people who sincerely believe in what they’re doing. And indeed, the WHO has, since its inception, accomplished important work, including the eradication of smallpox.

Too often though, WHO’s priorities have increasingly reflected the biases and interests of corporate medicine.

Too often, it has allowed political agendas—like pushing harmful gender ideology—to hijack its core mission.

And too often, it has become the tool of politics and turned its back on promoting health and health security.

Global cooperation on health is still critically important to President Trump and myself. But it isn’t working very well under the WHO, as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate.

The WHO has not even come to terms with its failures during COVID—let alone made significant reforms. Instead, it has doubled down with the pandemic agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response.

Well, we’re not going to participate in that. We need to reboot the whole system, as we are doing in the United States.

Here in the United States, we’re going to continue to focus on infectious disease and pandemic preparedness. But we’re also fundamentally shifting the priorities of our health agencies to focus on chronic diseases, which are prevalent in the United States.

It’s the chronic disease epidemic that is sickening our people and bankrupting our health care system. We’re now pivoting to make our health care system more responsive to this reality.

We’re going to make healthcare in the United States serve the needs of the public instead of industry profit-taking.

We’re removing food dyes and other harmful additives from our food supply.

We’re investigating the causes of autism and other chronic diseases.

We’re seeking to reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.

And we’re going to support lifestyle changes that will bolster the immune systems and transform the health of our people.

Few of these efforts lend themselves easily to profits or serve established special interests. These changes can only occur through the kind of systemic overhaul that President Trump has brought to our country.

We’d like to see a similar reordering of priorities on the global stage—especially considering the fact that through the leadership of the United States, and funding from our country over the past 25 years, millions of global citizens have seen a reduction in premature death due to HIV, TB, and malaria.

Let’s return to the core focus of global health and global health security—back to reducing infectious disease burden and the spread of diseases of pandemic potential.

[IoJ side note - see we told you CDC is the NEW W.H.O. - Can you see the writing on the wall here?

It appears that US withdrew from W.H.O. & now is in direct COMPETITION with W.H.O.!

I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organization as a wake-up call.

It isn’t that President Trump and I have lost interest in international cooperation—not at all.

We just want it to happen in a way that’s fair and efficient and transparent for all the member states.

We’ve already been in contact with like-minded countries, and we encourage others to consider joining us.

We want to free international health cooperation from the straightjacket of political interference by corrupting influences of the pharmaceutical companies, of adversarial nations, and their NGO proxies.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow health ministers around the world into a new era of cooperation.

We don’t have to suffer the limits of a moribund WHO. Let’s create new institutions—or revisit existing institutions—that are lean, efficient, transparent, and accountable.

Whether it’s an emergency outbreak of an infectious disease or the pervasive rot of chronic conditions that have been overtaking not just America but the whole world—we’re ready to work with you.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

Let’s all pray for the health of our children and our grandchildren.

Produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Share

We have 4 disputes with WHO (OHR, Vax, PCR & Farrar CENSORED us - ALL REFERRED BY WHO LEGAL TO MEMBER STATES TO DEAL WITH WHO’S WRONGDOINGS) - IS THIS THE TIME TO STRIKE?

Let’s go full steam ahead to help us to get RFK to take IoJ v WHO on RIGHT NOW & help us pay the bills while we work on contacting all member states at the same time - RIGHT NOW - STARTING TODAY WHILE ALL TOGETHER AT WHA - until one WHO Member State agrees with our right to settle the disputes for humanity & to Sue the WHO!

You can be the hero at the right time -NOW - and step in to really help us really take this to the next level

- Please support IoJ v WHO RIGHT NOW - TODAY - with a generous contribution if you are in the position to chip in for non profit legal fees - it’s overdue! It’s time to SUE!

Support Sue the WHO - It's TIME

Leave a comment

P.S.: Heads up: pandemics are not real

China Steps Up as WHO’s Top Donor with $500m After US Exit Marking Shift in Global Health Leadership

In a move that cements China’s rising influence in global health diplomacy, Vice Premier Liu Guozhong announced on Tuesday that Beijing would provide an additional $500 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) over the next five years.

The pledge, made during the annual World Health Assembly in Geneva, follows the United States’ formal withdrawal from the organization and leaves it scrambling to fill a gaping financial void once covered by Washington.

The development not only alters the power dynamics within the United Nations’ health agency but also underscores the tangible effects of President Donald Trump’s enduring “America First” doctrine, which continues to drive a retreat from multilateral institutions and global cooperation.

source

All the legalities to know are below but if you open this in time please sign NOW

UPDATE: The last minute intervention below failed - BUT at least we can say we tried.

- TODAY, MAY 20 THE TREATY WAS ADOPTED TO THE CHEERS OF THE WHOLE ROOM OF TRAITORS.

How we got here: Well, Yesterday, May 19, Slovakia got antsy and called a vote.

Slovakias epic gamble backfires…

One hundred twenty-four countries voted in favor of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, after Slovakia called for a vote on Monday, as its COVID-19 vaccine sceptic prime minister demanded that his country challenge the adoption of the agreement.

Tweet below from Slovakia PM Robert Fico is from BEFORE Slovakia demanded all countries VOTE:

- PM Fico probably thought the treaty would be reasonably rejected or that more countries wouls want to have domestic votes… but no, he calls a vote at the WHO WHA and SOLIDIFIES THE DEAL… NO one wants to reject the treaty or wait to adopt.

Sigh. Think about the irony.

The trouble with diplomatic negotiations and hard tactics, it’s always a gamble.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is scheduled to formally adopt the Pandemic Agreement during the plenary session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Subscribe now

Support our work so we can support you all! Let’s crush these guys!

Sue the WHO Legal Fund

The adoption is expected to occur during the morning session, followed by a high-level segment featuring statements from heads of state and the presentation of the Director-General’s Awards for Global Health.

Please note that the exact time of the adoption may vary, and the WHO will publish a daily journal each morning on the WHA78 Documents page to provide detailed information on the day’s schedule.

To stay updated on the proceedings, you can access the live webcast of the WHA78 public sessions on the WHO’s official website.

• 124 countries support treaty, 11 abstain including Poland, Israel, Italy

• Treaty addresses inequities in drug and vaccine development

• U.S. not bound by pact due to withdrawal under Trump

While this is VERY URGENT - let us all regroup and make wise plans to prevent the final ratifications in our countries, because it will not formally come into effect until an annex on pathogen sharing is negotiated, which could take up to two years, after which states will have to ratify the accord.

We can do a lot in that time. & WE BETTER GET UP AND ACT RIGHT NOW! TODAY! THIS SECOND! IT’S MUCH EASIER IF WE COULD BREAK CONSENSUS TODAY

We will return very shortly with a very serious diplomatic letter that we can try to send last minute and ask to . Be right back - IoJ

WE BETTER GET ON IT AND ACT RIGHT THIS SECOND! WE WORKED ON THIS ALL DAY AFTER WE HEARD OF TOMORROWS ADOPTION

As of this moment, the 78th World Health Assembly (WHA78) stands at a critical juncture in Geneva, with the formal adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (Document A78/10) scheduled for tomorrow’s plenary session as agenda item 16.2.

Today’s procedural vote (124 in favor, 0 against, 11 abstentions) has created the erroneous impression that adoption is a mere formality.

This assessment fundamentally misapprehends the applicable Rules of Procedure and constitutional requirements.

The formal adoption has not yet occurred. Lets PERSUADE NOW!

Member States retain the procedural right to prevent consensus adoption, but only in the am session in mere hours May 20 in Geneva.

In case you want hope:

(1) the precise procedural mechanisms available to Member States during today's plenary session;

(2) the specific legal defects in the Agreement warranting opposition; and

(3) immediate actions citizens can take before the session commences.

Sign the Demand below!

PROCEDURAL MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TODAY

The Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly provide multiple mechanisms through which Member States may prevent consensus adoption.

Each of these options remains fully available until the moment the President of the Assembly formally pronounces the Agreement adopted:

1. Formal Declaration of Opposition to Consensus Adoption

Procedural Basis: Rule 49 in conjunction with Article 19 of the WHO Constitution

When agenda item 16.2 is called for consideration, any delegation may take the floor and state:

"The delegation of [Member State] formally opposes adoption of the draft Pandemic Agreement as presented in document A78/10. Pursuant to Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, which explicitly requires 'a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly' for adoption of conventions or agreements, we request that a recorded roll-call vote be conducted."

This declaration must occur before the President pronounces the item adopted by consensus. A single Member State expressing formal opposition is sufficient to require a recorded vote.

2. Point of Order on Constitutional Requirements

Procedural Basis: Rule 58 (Points of Order)

Any delegation may raise a point of order specifically challenging the constitutional validity of proceeding without a formal vote:

"Point of order, Mr./Madam President. Article 19 of the WHO Constitution explicitly mandates a 'two-thirds vote' for adoption of conventions or agreements. Proceeding with adoption by consensus without conducting this constitutionally required vote would constitute an ultra vires procedural violation. We request a ruling from the President on this procedural question."

If the President rules against the point of order, any delegation may immediately appeal the ruling under Rule 59, forcing an immediate vote on whether to uphold the President's determination.

3. Motion to Postpone Debate

Procedural Basis: Rule 65 (Postponement of Debate)

Any delegation may move to postpone debate on agenda item 16.2:

"Pursuant to Rule 65, [Member State] moves to postpone debate on agenda item 16.2 concerning the Pandemic Agreement until the 79th World Health Assembly, to allow adequate time for constitutional review, parliamentary consultation, and resolution of the numerous identified legal deficiencies in the current text."

This motion requires only a simple majority to pass and would effectively prevent adoption at the current Assembly.

4. Motion for Division of the Proposal

Procedural Basis: Rule 64 (Division of Proposals)

Any delegation may request separate voting on specific problematic provisions:

"In accordance with Rule 64, [Member State] moves that the following provisions of the draft Pandemic Agreement be voted on separately: Article 8 paragraphs 2(a), 4, 5, and 6 on regulatory systems; Article 12 on the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System; and Article 19 on the Conference of the Parties."

This would require separate votes on each identified provision, potentially preventing their inclusion if they fail to secure the requisite two-thirds majority.

SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL DEFECTS WARRANTING OUR MAJOR OPPOSITION

The Agreement contains numerous provisions that exceed the WHO's constitutional mandate and contravene established principles of international law that would make Mengele proud:

1. Ultra Vires Emergency Use Listing Framework (Article 8)

Article 8 establishes a supranational regulatory framework for "expedited regulatory review and/or emergency regulatory authorization" (Art. 8.2(a)) that exceeds the WHO's constitutional mandate and contravenes principles of national regulatory sovereignty established under numerous legal frameworks, including:

• Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12

• Established jurisprudence regarding regulatory autonomy in public health

2. Contravention of Established Human Rights Norms

The Agreement facilitates a framework for potential non-consensual experimentation by omitting foundational bioethical protections, including:

• No reference to the Nuremberg Code's informed consent requirements

• Absence of Siracusa Principles limitations on emergency derogation of rights

• Failure to incorporate Helsinki Declaration protections for research subjects

• Contravention of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting medical experimentation without free consent

3. Pathogen Access System Sovereignty Infringements (Article 12)

Article 12 establishes a "Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System" that:

• Conflicts with established sovereign rights over biological resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol

• Creates compulsory pathogen sharing obligations without adequate consent safeguards

• Lacks sufficient biosafety protocols for dangerous pathogen collection, storage and research

• Fails to incorporate indigenous peoples' rights over genetic resources under UNDRIP

4. Conference of Parties Extraconstitutional Authority (Article 19)

Article 19 creates a "Conference of the Parties" with authority to "take the decisions necessary to promote effective implementation" without requiring domestic parliamentary approval, effectively establishing a supranational authority not contemplated by the WHO Constitution and infringing upon fundamental principles of state consent in international law.

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS WE MUST TAKE TODAY

1. Urgent Communication with National Delegations

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: Contact your country's WHA delegation, foreign ministry officials, and diplomatic missions in Geneva before the plenary session begins:

• Request that your delegation formally oppose consensus adoption using the procedural mechanisms outlined above

• Emphasize that today's adoption DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BIND your nation, but creates problematic precedent

• Highlight that abstention is insufficient - formal opposition and request for recorded vote is necessary

• Emphasize that Article 19 of the WHO Constitution explicitly requires a formal vote rather than consensus

Contact Information:

• [Your Country]'s Mission to the UN in Geneva: [Phone/Email]

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs Emergency Contact: [Phone/Email]

• WHO Delegation Point of Contact: [Name/Position/Contact]

Sample Communication:

"I urgently request that our delegation formally oppose consensus adoption of the Pandemic Agreement (Document A78/10) at today's plenary session by invoking Rule 49 and Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, which explicitly requires a 'two-thirds vote' for adoption of conventions. If necessary, please raise a formal point of order under Rule 58 challenging the constitutional validity of consensus adoption without a formal vote. The Agreement contains numerous provisions that exceed WHO's constitutional mandate, particularly Articles 8, 12, and 19, which infringe upon fundamental sovereign rights regarding regulatory autonomy, biological resources, and democratic governance."

2. Demand Recorded Positions

If your country is among the 124 that voted in favor yesterday, demand transparency regarding their position:

• Request a formal explanation of their vote, particularly regarding the most problematic provisions

• Emphasize that yesterday's vote was procedural and does not represent formal adoption

• Request confirmation that your representatives will insist on a formal recorded vote today as required by Article 19 of the WHO Constitution

• Emphasize that WHO Constitution Article 19 also specifies that agreements "shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes" - meaning domestic legislative approval is still required

3. Focus on Abstaining Nations

The 11 abstaining nations (Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran and others) represent the most likely candidates to formally oppose consensus adoption today:

• If you are a citizen of one of these nations, emphasize that abstention is insufficient - formal opposition is necessary

• If you have connections to civil society organizations, media outlets, or government officials in these countries, urge them to contact their delegations immediately

• Emphasize that these nations have already indicated concerns through their abstention, and today represents the critical moment to formalize opposition

4. Prepare for Next Phase

Even if adoption occurs today May 20, the process is far from complete:

• The Agreement will not be opened for signature until after adoption of the contentious PABS Annex (Article 31.2), which could take months or years (while we fight in courts)

• Article 33.1 requires 60 nations to ratify before entry into force

• Ratification requires domestic constitutional processes in each country

• Begin organizing now to challenge ratification through legislative and judicial processes

  ---

IOJ FINALLY GOT OUR TECHNOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES FIXED to open the new Membership Site where we can all really dive in and take care of this mess. The old site was clunky so we went all out.

- THEY CAN’T HAVE THE DAMN TREATY. NOT ON OUR WATCH.

JOIN US EVERY SATURDAY NOON EST

community.interestofjustice.org

CONCLUSION: THE CRITICAL WINDOW IS TODAY

The procedural fiction that the WHA May 19th treaty vote represents conclusion of the adoption process fundamentally misapprehends both WHO Rules of Procedure and the constitutional requirements of Article 19.

Member States absolutely retain the ability—indeed, the constitutional obligation—to prevent consensus adoption today by invoking the specific procedural mechanisms outlined above.

Citizens must act with maximum urgency to communicate with their representatives before the plenary session concludes. SHARE NOW!!

SHARE NOW! SHARE NOW FAR AND WIDE! STOP THE WHO TAKEOVER!

The window for influence is VERY narrow but remains open until they decide to adopt the treaty accord or not in a few hours - presumably in the am session of the WHA, which is already TODAY in Geneva.

Procedural action today can prevent the normalization of an inherently harmful instrument with profound implications for sovereignty, individual rights, and democratic governance.

Reuters:

Following three years of difficult negotiations, the agreement has been seen by many diplomats and analysts as a victory for global cooperation at a time when multilateral organisations like the WHO have been battered by sharp cuts in U.S. foreign funding.

U.S. negotiators left the discussions after President Donald Trump began a 12-month process of withdrawing the U.S. - by far the WHO's largest financial backer - from the agency when he took office in January. Given this, the U.S. would not be bound by the pact.

The final draft of the pandemic agreement for the World Health Assembly (WHA) next week was published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Wednesday – along with a document outlining the long road member states still have to travel before it is enforced.

This follows the historic agreement reached on the text in the early hours of 16 April after three years of talks on how to prevent, prepare for, and deal with, future pandemics in an equitable manner – unlike what happened during COVID when wealthy nations hoarded vaccines at the expense of low- and middle-income countries.

The procedural document outlining the steps to adoption, which will be done in terms of Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, makes sobering reading.

While the agreement needs a two-thirds vote to pass, “adoption of the text by consensus automatically fulfils this requirement”, it notes.

Once the WHA has adopted the agreement via a resolution, it will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who will ensure it is prepared in various languages for signature.

Member states are expected to notify the WHO Director General on whether they intend to accept the agreement within 18 months of its adoption by the WHA.

Still more PABS negotiations

But member states’ signature of the pandemic agreement will only happen after the adoption of an annex on the much-contested Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System – a mechanism on how to share information about pathogens with pandemic potential and any possible benefits (such as vaccines and therapeutics) that might arise from sharing this information.

This annex – called the PABS instrument – still has to be negotiated, and it deals with a range of issues including “the provisions governing the PABS System, definitions of pathogens with pandemic potential and PABS Materials and Sequence Information, modalities, legal nature, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions”.

This means the PABS can of worms will be reopened in the coming months and member states will once again have to find agreement on this highly contested subject.

Only once the annex has been agreed, will the WHO Pandemic Agreement be open for signature by heads of state.

But even once the heads of state have signed the agreement, countries are not bound by its provisions.

Instead, by signing, a head of state would be “expressing political approval of the treaty concerned, and raises an expectation that the signatory will in due course take the appropriate domestic actions to become a contracting party”.

However, before domestic ratification, member states that have signed the treaty will be expected not to undermine the agreement.

Countries that have ratified the pandemic agreement will then be expected to deposit instruments of ratification with the UN Secretary-General and once 60 countries have done so, it will come into force and the first Conference of Parties will be held.

The entire process is likely to take several years, during which many new norms will be built domestically to prepare for these international structural changes incoming.

Share

donate

Leave a comment

NOTICE: We are going to drop off our previous Petition today To Stop the Treaty. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR SIGNING!

The WHO Treaty delegates will hear from you all today!

WE ALSO HAVE A NEW DEMAND TO STOP THE TREATY DUE TO 100 THREATS WE FOUND. WE DON’T THINK MOST PEOPLE REALIZE HOW BIG THE UPCOMING THREAT IS REGARDING THIS TREATY ABOUT TO PASS!

NOTICE: After we realized the WHO Treaty threats are easily up to 100 issues, we made a BRAND SPANKING NEW petition for you to all sign regarding these following 100 threats:

SIGN HERE: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/100-critical-reasons-to-oppose-the-who-pandemic-treaty/

See all open demands: Noticeandemand.org

ONLY 10 Days Left to the World Health Assembly Vote! We better get acting fast!

100 Persistent Threats In Pandemic Treaty - By Interest of Justice

With Direct Citations from the April 12, 2025 Draft

How to read and interpret our risk report:

The issues are BOTH terrible articles and the stuff it completely omits.

• [OMISSION] is for the stuff that the treaty does NOT include, which it should include to be legitimate.

• Articles from the new draft are precisely named below with the problem.

Share

Subscribe now

If this urgent and unique information we diligently compiled here is valuable to you in any way, please help and support by commenting, liking and making a generous donation if you are in the position to do so.

We REALLY need help so we can continue this non profit labor of love!

Donate

Sovereignty and Democratic Governance

1. Perpetual Authority Beyond Emergencies: [OMISSION] No explicit limitation of authority to emergency periods only; Article 4 on "Pandemic prevention and surveillance" creates obligations applicable at all times.

2. Vague Definition of "Pandemic": [OMISSION] Article 1 "Use of terms" lacks precise criteria defining what constitutes a pandemic.

3. Parliamentary Circumvention: Article 21 establishes "Conference of the Parties" with authority to "take the decisions necessary to promote effective implementation" without requiring national parliamentary approval.

4. Mandatory Governmental Restructuring: Article 17 requires "Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches" that override constitutional separation of powers.

5. One-Year Withdrawal Period: Article 32 states: "Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt."

6. Low Ratification Threshold: Article 35 requires only "60 instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession" before the treaty comes into force.

7. Special Status for EU: Article 34 creates provisions for "regional economic integration organizations" allowing participation without being WHO members.

8. No Deference to Constitutional Constraints: [OMISSION] No provision acknowledging that implementation must respect national constitutional limitations.

9. Federalism Undermined: [OMISSION] No provisions respecting federal systems where health powers are constitutionally distributed across multiple levels of government.

10. Inadequate Judicial Review: Article 25 on "Settlement of disputes" provides only that "Parties shall settle disputes... through negotiation or any other peaceful means of their own choice" without independent judicial review.

11. Minimal Democratic Input: [OMISSION] No provisions requiring broad public consultation or democratic input in implementation.

12. Conference of Parties Supremacy: Article 21 grants the Conference of Parties powers to "keep implementation under regular review" and "take decisions necessary to promote effective implementation."

13. No Legislative Oversight Requirements: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring ongoing parliamentary/congressional oversight of implementation.

14. Secretariat Powers: Article 24 establishes that "The functions of the Secretariat shall be... to make arrangements for sessions... facilitate assistance... prepare reports... ensure coordination... perform other secretariat functions" without clear accountability mechanisms.

15. Emergency Declaration Without Checks: [OMISSION] No requirement for independent verification or multi-stakeholder confirmation of emergency declarations.

16. No Sunset Provisions: [OMISSION] No automatic expiration clauses requiring renewal through democratic processes.

17. Amendments Without Universal Consent: Article 29 allows amendments to be adopted by a "two-thirds majority of the Parties present and voting," binding dissenting nations.

18. Permanent Institutional Architecture: Articles 21-24 create permanent governance structures without time limitations or periodic reauthorization requirements.

19. Limited Reservations: Article 27 states "No reservations may be made to this Agreement," preventing nations from excluding problematic provisions.

20. Sovereignty Over Natural Resources Undermined: Article 12 establishes a "Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System" that conflicts with established principles of sovereignty over biological resources.

Medical Ethics and Freedom Concerns

21. Nuremberg Code Principles Omitted: [OMISSION] No reference to the Nuremberg Code or its principles regarding voluntary informed consent for medical interventions.

22. Siracusa Principles Excluded: [OMISSION] No incorporation of Siracusa Principles regarding proportionality and necessity for rights limitations during emergencies.

23. Regulatory "Harmonization": Article 14 promotes "Regulatory systems strengthening" without safeguards against downward harmonization that could bypass more stringent national safety standards.

24. Emergency Use Authorization Facilitation: Article 14 includes provisions supporting expedited approval pathways for "pandemic-related products" without adequate safety requirements.

25. WHO as Product "Prequalifier": Article 14 reinforces WHO's role in product qualification without adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest.

26. Reduced Testing Standards: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring emergency countermeasures meet the same safety standards as products in non-emergency situations.

27. No Explicit Liability Frameworks: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring compensation for injuries resulting from recommended interventions.

28. Natural Immunity Disregarded: [OMISSION] No provisions acknowledging naturally-acquired immunity as an alternative to pharmaceutical interventions.

29. No Protection for Medical Privacy: [OMISSION] No adequate safeguards for personal health data in surveillance systems established under Article 4.

30. Digital Health Certificate Enablement: [OMISSION] No prohibitions against discrimination based on medical status or vaccination status.

31. No Religious/Philosophical Exemption Protection: [OMISSION] No provisions preserving religious or philosophical objections to medical interventions.

32. Children's Rights Inadequately Protected: [OMISSION] No specific protections against experimental interventions on minors or recognition of parental authority.

33. No Recognition of Medical Autonomy: [OMISSION] No acknowledgment of the right to refuse medical treatment.

34. Pregnant Women Protection Deficient: [OMISSION] No special safeguards for pregnant women regarding experimental interventions.

35. Lack of Informed Consent Requirements: [OMISSION] No explicit provisions ensuring informed consent for emergency countermeasures.

36. No Prior Assembly Approval Requirement: [OMISSION] No requirement for World Health Assembly approval before implementing extraordinary measures.

37. Vulnerable Population Protections Absent: [OMISSION] No specific protections for elderly, immunocompromised, or other high-risk groups regarding experimental interventions.

38. Free Speech Protections Missing: [OMISSION] Article 18 on "Communication and public awareness" lacks safeguards for free speech and open debate about health measures.

39. Medical Coercion Enablement: [OMISSION] No prohibitions against mandates or coercion regarding medical interventions.

40. Lack of Proportionality Requirements: [OMISSION] No explicit requirement that interventions be proportionate to demonstrated risks.

Scientific Integrity and Information Control

41. "Misinformation" Control Without Safeguards: Article 18 addresses "Communication and public awareness" without protecting scientific dissent or defining misinformation.

42. Centralized Research Direction: Article 9 establishes mechanisms directing "Research and development" priorities without ensuring scientific independence.

43. Pharmaceutical Solution Bias: Articles 9-14 emphasize pharmaceutical interventions over non-pharmaceutical approaches and traditional medicines.

44. Inadequate Conflict of Interest Protections: [OMISSION] No robust safeguards against industry influence on public health recommendations and research priorities.

45. No Whistleblower Protections: [OMISSION] No provisions protecting scientists who raise concerns about safety or efficacy of recommended interventions.

46. Data Transparency Deficits: [OMISSION] No requirements for full disclosure of clinical trial data for emergency countermeasures.

47. No Independent Verification Requirements: [OMISSION] No provisions requiring independent verification of manufacturer-provided safety and efficacy data.

48. Outcome Measurement Absence: [OMISSION] No objective criteria for evaluating success or failure of directed public health measures.

49. Scientific Methodology Homogenization: [OMISSION] No provisions protecting methodological diversity in research approaches.

50. Traditional Knowledge Marginalization: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring respect for traditional medicine with established safety records.

51. Advisory Mechanism Deficiencies: [OMISSION] No requirements for truly independent scientific advisory mechanisms free from conflicts of interest.

52. Expert Diversity Lacking: [OMISSION] No requirements for including diverse scientific perspectives in advisory bodies.

53. Raw Data Access Limitations: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring independent researchers can access raw clinical trial data.

54. Risk-Benefit Analysis Omissions: [OMISSION] No explicit requirements for transparent risk-benefit analyses before implementing measures.

55. Scientific Debate Suppression Framework: Article 18 on communication lacks protections for scientific debate and dissenting viewpoints.

56. Politicized Science Enablement: [OMISSION] No safeguards separating scientific assessment from political decision-making.

57. Pharmaceutical Publication Bias Unaddressed: [OMISSION] No safeguards against publication bias favoring positive results for pharmaceuticals.

58. Non-Reproducible Research Concerns: [OMISSION] No special provisions ensuring research supporting emergency measures meets reproducibility standards.

59. Precautionary Principle Selectively Applied: [OMISSION] No consistent application of precautionary approaches to both disease risks and intervention risks.

60. Circular Citation Networks Unaddressed: [OMISSION] No safeguards against self-referential citation networks creating pseudo-consensus.

Intellectual Property and Resource Control

61. Technology Transfer Mandates: Article 11 requires "Transfer of technology and know-how for the production of pandemic‑related health products" potentially undermining legitimate intellectual property.

62. Compulsory Licensing Ambiguities: [OMISSION] No clear provisions balancing public health needs with intellectual property protections during emergencies.

63. Pathogen Access System: Article 12 establishes a "Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System" with unclear sovereignty implications.

64. Indigenous Knowledge Appropriation Risks: [OMISSION] Inadequate protections for traditional knowledge and genetic resources in the pathogen sharing system.

65. R&D Disincentives: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring that technology sharing requirements don't undermine research investment incentives.

66. Digital Infrastructure Mandates: [OMISSION] No provisions addressing the substantial unfunded technology mandates for developing nations.

67. Inequitable Benefit Distribution: Article 12 on "Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System" lacks concrete implementation mechanisms for equitable benefit distribution.

68. Genetic Data Control: [OMISSION] No explicit consent requirements or usage limitations for genetic information collected through the pathogen sharing system.

69. Supply Chain Nationalization Potential: Article 13 on "Supply chain and logistics" enables extensive government control without clear limitations.

70. Private Sector Commandeering: [OMISSION] No clear compensation frameworks for private sector capacity utilization during emergencies.

71. Unfunded Mandates: [OMISSION] No adequate funding mechanisms for the substantial obligations created by Articles 4-19.

72. Manufacturing Localization Requirements: Article 10 on "Sustainable and geographically diversified local production" imposes potentially unrealistic manufacturing requirements.

73. Resource Allocation Distortions: [OMISSION] No provisions preventing diversion of resources from pressing local health priorities.

74. Patent Pool Coercion: [OMISSION] No safeguards ensuring fair compensation for mandated participation in technology sharing mechanisms.

75. Nagoya Protocol Conflicts: [OMISSION] No provisions addressing potential conflicts between Article 12's pathogen sharing system and the Nagoya Protocol.

76. Bilateral Agreement Disruption: [OMISSION] No provisions preserving existing bilateral agreements on technology transfer and intellectual property.

77. Strategic Resource Designation: [OMISSION] No limitations on designation of health technologies as strategic resources subject to special controls.

78. Compulsory Knowledge Transfer: Article 11 requires transfer of "know-how" which goes beyond traditional IP sharing to include trade secrets.

79. Indigenous Rights Undermined: [OMISSION] No specific protections for indigenous peoples' rights over traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

80. TRIPS Agreement Conflicts: [OMISSION] No provisions addressing potential conflicts with WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

If this urgent and unique information we diligently compiled here is valuable to you in any way, please help and support by commenting, liking and making a generous donation if you are in the position to do so.

We REALLY need help so we can continue this non profit labor of love!

Donate

Implementation and Structural Concerns

81. Inadequate Biosafety Protocols: [OMISSION] Article 12's pathogen sharing system lacks sufficient safety requirements for collection, storage, and research of dangerous pathogens.

82. Gain-of-Function Research Oversight Deficit: [OMISSION] No provisions limiting potentially dangerous pathogen manipulation research.

83. Laboratory Leak Prevention Inadequacies: [OMISSION] No provisions strengthening laboratory containment standards despite recognized pandemic risks.

84. Financial Burden Inequities: [OMISSION] No mechanisms ensuring equitable distribution of compliance costs, particularly for developing nations.

85. One-Size-Fits-All Approach: [OMISSION] No provisions allowing adaptation to different health systems, resources, and contexts.

86. Surveillance Without Privacy Protections: Article 4 promotes expanded health surveillance without proportionate data protection safeguards.

87. International Humanitarian Law Reference: Article 3 inappropriately references "international humanitarian law" (normally applicable to armed conflicts) for public health measures.

88. Technical Assistance Insufficiency: [OMISSION] Inadequate capacity-building provisions for resource-limited countries to implement complex requirements.

89. Strategic Ambiguity in Critical Provisions: Multiple articles contain bracketed text and highlighting indicating "areas still to be resolved," creating strategic ambiguity.

90. Reliance on WHO Assessment: [OMISSION] No independent verification mechanisms for WHO's pandemic risk assessments despite documented failures in previous emergencies.

91. Health System Capacity Disparities Unaddressed: [OMISSION] No adequate provisions accounting for vast differences in health system capacity between nations.

92. Public-Private Partnership Risks: [OMISSION] No safeguards against problematic entanglements between public authorities and commercial interests.

93. Resource Competition Creation: [OMISSION] No mechanisms preventing exacerbated competition for scarce medical resources during emergencies.

94. Colonial Power Dynamics: [OMISSION] No safeguards against reproducing colonial dynamics in global health governance with decision-making centered in wealthy nations.

95. Conflation of Communication with Compliance: Article 18 approaches communication primarily as ensuring compliance rather than authentic dialogue.

96. Insufficient Recognition of Regional Differences: [OMISSION] No provisions accounting for regional epidemiological and cultural differences in pandemic response.

97. Undefined "Equitable Access": [OMISSION] Uses term "equitable access" throughout without clear definition or implementation criteria.

98. Lack of Cultural Sensitivity Requirements: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring interventions respect diverse cultural contexts and beliefs.

99. International Organizations Supremacy: Article 3 establishes WHO as the "directing and coordinating authority" without adequate checks and balances.

100. Historical Amnesia: [OMISSION] No acknowledgment of lessons from historical abuses of emergency powers or failures in previous health emergencies.

Evolution of the WHO Pandemic Treaty: Key Changes and Persistent Threats

As the WHO Pandemic Treaty has evolved through multiple drafts, negotiators have made strategic adjustments to facilitate its adoption while preserving the core architecture of centralized control. These changes represent tactical concessions rather than substantive improvements to address fundamental concerns.

Notable Changes in the April 12, 2025 Draft

1. Withdrawal Period Reduction:

   • Early Drafts: Required a three-year waiting period before nations could exit the treaty

   • April 12 Draft: Reduced to a one-year waiting period (Article 32)

   • Analysis: While improved, this still creates a substantial lock-in period during which nations cannot rapidly respond to harmful consequences

2. Ratification Threshold Increase:

   • Early Drafts: Required 30-40 nations to ratify before entry into force

   • April 12 Draft: Increased to 60 nations (Article 35)

   • Analysis: Though numerically higher, this threshold remains insufficient given the treaty's extraordinary scope and implications

3. Strategic Ambiguity in Key Provisions:

   • Early Drafts: More explicit language in controversial areas

   • April 12 Draft: Uses yellow highlighting for "areas still to be resolved" and employs deliberately vague terminology

   • Analysis: Creates illusion of ongoing negotiation while preserving dangerous provisions through strategic indeterminacy

4. Rhetorical Inclusion of Human Rights:

   • Early Drafts: Initially removed references to "dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons"

   • April 12 Draft: Reintroduced references to human rights but includes confusing references to "international humanitarian law" (Article 3)

   • Analysis: Superficial inclusion of rights language without substantive protections or enforcement mechanisms

5. Benefit-Sharing Ambiguities:

   • Early Drafts: More specific commitments to supporting developing nations

   • April 12 Draft: Article 12 on Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System contains numerous bracketed sections indicating unresolved issues

   • Analysis: Creates impression of equity while deferring concrete commitments

Conclusion

The April 12, 2025 draft maintains all the critical flaws of previous versions despite cosmetic changes.

DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU IT”S FINE, BENIGN AND FIXED! IT’s NOT.

As this new comprehensive IoJ review and risk report demonstrates, the treaty contains 100 significant problems, with 72 representing total omissions of critical protections and safeguards. The remaining 28 cite specific provisions that raise serious concerns about sovereignty, individual rights, and democratic governance.

Most alarming is what the treaty fails to include: no protections for informed consent, no incorporation of the Nuremberg Code or Siracusa Principles, no safeguards for religious or philosophical exemptions, no acknowledgment of the right to refuse treatment, and no meaningful limitations on WHO authority, and all of this despite significant investments in EXPERIMENTAL countermeasure unproven interventions.

Nations concerned with preserving their sovereignty and protecting citizens' rights should not be placated by superficial adjustments. Us activists sure as hell should be proactive.

The time to oppose this treaty is right now, before ratification makes resistance exponentially more difficult both legally and politically.

Remember to share, sign the demand, stay involved and stay awesome!

Share

Donate

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Donate

Our descendants yet unborn will be either the grateful beneficiaries or the tragic casualties of the resolve we summon in humanity's hour of testing. - IoJ

50 Persistent Threats in the WHO Pandemic Treaty Newest Draft

Despite minor concessions in recent drafts, the WHO Pandemic Treaty continues to present grave threats to national sovereign decision making, individual freedom, and democratic governance.

Below are 50 critical concerns that remain unaddressed across all draft versions, including the April 12, 2025 draft:

Download the PDF:

Top 50 Threats To The Who's Pandemic Treaty By Interest Of Justice

3.55MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Sovereignty and Governance Threats

1. Perpetual Emergency Powers: Authority "at all times" creates a permanent state of exception outside democratic control.

2. Ambiguous Definitions: Critical terms like "pandemic" remain deliberately vague, enabling arbitrary declarations of emergency.

3. Parliamentary Bypass: Creates mechanisms to implement binding directives without legislative approval in member states.

4. Mandatory Governmental Restructuring: "Whole-of-government" approach requires constitutional reorganization that violates separation of powers.

5. Insufficient Withdrawal Provisions: One-year waiting period (improved from three years but still inadequate) prevents rapid exit when national interests are threatened.

6. European Union Special Status: Allows a non-WHO member entity to participate, creating unprecedented delegation of treaty authority.

7. Global Health Architecture Dominance: Establishes WHO as the "directing and coordinating authority" with supremacy over all other health institutions.

8. Democracy Deficit: Treaty negotiated with minimal public input and systematic exclusion of critical stakeholders.

9. Federalism Undermining: Centralizes authority in ways that override constitutional arrangements where health powers are distributed across multiple levels of government.

10. No Effective Judicial Review: Lacks accessible mechanisms for challenging ultra vires actions or rights violations committed under treaty authority.

Medical Ethics and Freedom Concerns

11. Nuremberg Code Omission: Fails to explicitly incorporate informed consent protections established after World War II medical atrocities.

12. Siracusa Principles Exclusion: Omits established safeguards requiring emergency measures to be necessary, proportionate, and time-limited.

13. Regulatory "Harmonization": Enables downward standardization that could bypass more stringent national safety requirements.

14. Fast-Track Approvals: Facilitates rushed authorization of experimental countermeasures without enhanced safety monitoring.

15. Liability Shields: Creates pathways for immunity protections that leave individuals without recourse for injuries from mandated interventions.

16. Natural Immunity Disregarded: Systematically privileges pharmaceutical interventions over recognition of naturally-acquired immunity.

17. Genetic Technology Misclassification: Enables regulatory reclassification of mRNA and gene technologies to circumvent appropriate scrutiny.

18. Religious and Philosophical Exemption Erosion: Contains no protections for conscientious objections to medical interventions.

19. Digital Health Certification: Enables infrastructure for restricting rights based on compliance with recommended interventions.

20. Children's Protection Deficiencies: Lacks safeguards against experimental interventions on minors or provisions preserving parental authority.

Scientific Integrity Issues

21. "Misinformation" Control Without Viewpoint Protection: Enables censorship of legitimate scientific debate and dissenting expert opinions.

22. Centralized Research Direction: Establishes mechanisms for controlling global research priorities that threaten scientific diversity.

23. Pharmaceutical Intervention Bias: Prioritizes patentable interventions over non-pharmaceutical approaches and natural immunity.

24. Conflict of Interest Vulnerabilities: Lacks robust safeguards against industry influence on public health policy.

25. Whistleblower Protection Absence: Fails to protect scientists who raise concerns about safety or efficacy of recommended interventions.

26. Data Transparency Deficits: Lacks requirements for full disclosure of clinical trial data for emergency countermeasures.

27. Independent Verification Omission: Allows reliance on manufacturer-provided data without independent verification requirements.

28. Outcome Measurement Absence: Establishes no objective criteria for evaluating success or failure of WHO-directed measures.

29. Methodological Pluralism Undermined: Standardization approach threatens benefits of diverse, competing models of pandemic response.

30. Traditional Knowledge Marginalization: Privileges pharmaceutical approaches over traditional medicine with established safety records.

Property Rights and Resource Control

31. Intellectual Property Appropriation: Mandatory technology sharing threatens legitimate patent rights without adequate compensation.

32. Pathogen Sovereignty Violations: Access system conflicts with national sovereignty over biological resources established in the Nagoya Protocol.

33. Indigenous Knowledge Exploitation: Inadequate protections for traditional knowledge create biopiracy risks.

34. R&D Disincentives: Compulsory sharing requirements threaten investment in crucial medical innovation.

35. Digital Infrastructure Mandates: Creates substantial unfunded technology requirements for developing nations.

36. Inequitable Benefit Distribution: Structure disproportionately benefits wealthy nations and pharmaceutical companies despite equity language.

37. Genetic Data Appropriation: Enables collection and use of sensitive genetic information without adequate consent or usage limitations.

38. Supply Chain Nationalization: Provisions enabling government control of medical supply chains threaten market mechanisms ensuring efficient distribution.

39. Private Sector Commandeering: Enables requisitioning of private manufacturing capacity without clear compensation frameworks.

40. Benefit-Sharing Ambiguities: Vague language on "equitable" sharing creates uncertainty about obligations and entitlements.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate

Implementation and Biosecurity Concerns

41. Inadequate Biosafety Protocols: Pathogen sharing system lacks sufficient safety requirements for dangerous materials.

42. Gain-of-Function Research Oversight Deficit: No meaningful limitations on potentially dangerous pathogen manipulation.

43. Laboratory Containment Standards Deficiency: Fails to strengthen protections against lab leaks despite recognized pandemic risks.

44. Disproportionate Financial Burdens: Creates substantial compliance costs without corresponding support, particularly for developing nations.

45. One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Imposes standardized measures despite vast differences in national health systems, resources, and cultural contexts.

46. Surveillance Without Privacy Safeguards: Promotes expanded health monitoring without proportionate data protection.

47. Conflicts With Other International Obligations: Creates potential contradictions with WTO agreements, human rights treaties, and biodiversity protections.

48. Technical Assistance Insufficiency: Mandates complex systems without adequate capacity-building for resource-limited countries.

49. Strategic Ambiguity in Critical Provisions: Defers crucial details to future implementation mechanisms controlled by unaccountable bureaucrats.

50. International Humanitarian Law Confusion: References to laws of armed conflict create inappropriate legal framework for public health measures that could enable rights derogations.

Conclusion

These 50 threats persist across all versions of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, including the newest April 12, 2025 draft. The cosmetic changes between drafts—that some insane CHAOS freedom fighters are celebrating as a “win”, such as reducing the withdrawal period from three years to one year or increasing the ratification threshold from 30-40 to 60 nations—fail to address these fundamental concerns.

The treaty remains, at its core, an unprecedented transfer or re-delegation of sovereign decision making in health policy from democratically accountable governments to an unaccountable international bureaucracy. Once established, this system of centralized control will prove exceedingly difficult to dismantle.

Nations concerned with preserving their sovereignty, protecting citizens' rights, and maintaining democratic control of public health must oppose this treaty in its entirety—not be placated by minor adjustments that leave the dangerous architecture intact.

The problem is the nations appear to be mostly united in wanting to usher this in.

Summary

The WHO's proposed Pandemic Agreement poses grave risks to democratic sovereignty, fundamental rights, and evidence-based public health policy that substantially outweigh its purported benefits of improved coordination. By vastly expanding unaccountable supranational authority, neglecting basic human rights safeguards, facilitating regulatory capture by special interests, undermining key bioethical protections, and centralizing control over public health in an opaque bureaucracy, it creates a framework ripe for serious abuse.

The agreement's glaring deficits of democratic legitimacy, scientific impartiality, and respect for human dignity are structural and pervasive. They cannot be remedied through minor tweaks or mere "transparency" reforms alone. Member States should reject this irredeemably defective instrument outright and demand an entirely new, inclusive process based on the non-negotiable imperatives of individual liberty and true popular consent. Failing that, it may regrettably become necessary to exit a captured WHO altogether and forge a new model of public health cooperation deferential to national sovereignty and self-determination.

The profound inadequacies of the current approach should impel a fundamental rethink of the global pandemic response architecture. One anchored in radical decentralization, maximal transparency, robust accountability, and inviolable human freedom as the foundational organizing principles, in stark contrast to the failed dictatorial paradigm of 2020-2023. A once-in-a-generation opportunity exists to catalyze such a transformation - but only if a critical mass of the world's citizens rapidly mobilizes to reject illegitimate efforts to lock in the very worst elements of that disastrous record under cover of "emergency." The mass movements stopped when CHAOS agents told everyone the treaty is fixed now by minor concessions. Its aggravating.

Ultimately, the choice between submitting to an open-ended technocratic "New Normal" and an adaptive, pluralistic, freedom-respecting international order may be the inflection point that defines the direction of the 21st century. Its outcome, for good or for ill, will reverberate across the remainder of human history.

At this hinge moment, with the dreams of the world's peoples precariously in the balance, neutrality is complicity and silence is acquiescence.

The last, best hope of forestalling the former dystopia and realizing the latter vision lies in the vigilant, unyielding resistance of all people of goodwill and commitment to human dignity as the lodestar of public health.

Our descendants yet unborn will be either the grateful beneficiaries or the tragic casualties of the resolve we summon in humanity's hour of testing.

Executive Summary

The World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a new international "Pandemic Agreement" aimed at strengthening global pandemic preparedness and response. However, a comprehensive analysis of the draft text published on April 12, 2025 reveals numerous alarming provisions that gravely threaten national sovereignty, democratic governance, fundamental human rights, and evidence-based public health policy.

The highly questionable benefits of enhanced pandemic coordination are vastly outweighed by the agreement's potential to permanently expand and centralize sweeping, unaccountable power in the hands of unelected WHO bureaucrats at the expense of democratically legitimized national and individual decision-making. Its vaguely worded text is rife with undefined terms vulnerable to abuse, startling omissions of elementary human rights protections, and subtle loopholes that cumulatively erode essential checks and balances on supranational authority.

As such, this report unequivocally recommends that Member States decisively reject this irredeemably defective agreement as a profound threat to liberal democracy and human freedom. Should it nevertheless be coercively railroaded through without meaningfully addressing its glaring flaws, responsible nations must be prepared to withdraw from a morally compromised WHO that has forfeited its legitimacy of representing the common good.

The only path forward is to construct a new, decentralized global public health architecture that respects national sovereignty and individual liberty as sacrosanct guiding principles.

Irreversible Re-delegation of National Sovereignty

At its core, the proposed agreement aims to radically expand the WHO's governing authority over member states and render it effectively permanent, unrestricted by any requirement for declared international emergencies:

• Proclaim open-ended "public health emergencies of international concern" and issue dictatorial "recommendations" that countries are practically powerless to contest (Art. 4, 6, 19);[^1]

• Compel governments to adopt "whole-of-society" approaches that subordinate all policies across every sector to top-down supranational decrees subject to no meaningful limit (Art. 5);[^2]

• Override democratically enacted national laws on intellectual property and medical product regulation to rubber stamp approval of WHO-favored interventions with negligible transparency (Art. 9-10);[^3]

• Expropriate genetic resources and confidential research data from countries and corporations to forcibly "share" with the developing world on specious "equity" grounds (Art. 12);[^4]

• Commandeer the allocation of vital healthcare supplies and resources globally via opaque, unaccountable algorithmic "coordination mechanisms." (Art. 13-13bis).[^5]

These extraordinary competencies extend far beyond any reasonable conception of the WHO's core mandate into an all-encompassing supranational government unconstrained by democratic oversight, constitutionalism, or judicial redress.[^6] By assenting to these terms, countries would be delivering draconian control over health, economic, social, security and technology policy to a demonstrably compromised organization with a calamitous record of upholding scientific integrity and human rights in emergencies.[^7]

The ambiguous, open-ended derogation provisions and glaring omission of clear pathways for states to retract authority once granted create grave risks that signatories could become permanently ensnared in exceedingly burdensome obligations with no escape.[^8] Irrespective of drafter intent, the unavoidable reality is that this agreement launches a frontal assault on state sovereignty and democratic self-determination at a moment of unprecedented fragility in the post-war international order.[^9] No purported imperative of exigency can sanction such a reckless leap into a "post-democratic" global technocracy of experts.

The agreement's nominal assurances of respecting sovereignty are fatally flawed by its intrusive provisions enabling an unelected entity to impose maximal policy constraints on states. This amounts to an audacious usurpation of authority initiated by complicit governments, not just a unilateral WHO power play. However, that does not negate its profound tension with constitutional orders vesting ultimate public health powers in democratically accountable national institutions.[^a]

Indeed, the International Health Regulations (2005) unambiguously affirm that "States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies."[^b] By systematically subordinating this sovereign prerogative to supranational diktats, the agreement transgresses a foundational tenet of global health law.

The radical delegations proposed - from enabling the WHO to unilaterally declare emergencies without substantive review to dictating states' allocation of health resources - vastly exceed the legitimate scope of conventional treaties. They amount to nothing short of a wholesale re-engineering of the bedrock constitutional balance between international and national authorities in the public health domain.

Such tectonic transformations cannot be realized by executive fiat. They demand intensive, open deliberation and affirmative ratification by the peoples of the world acting through their elected branches, not closed-door machinations of a transnational technocratic elite. Any international instrument that so drastically constrains legislatures' health policy discretion must be embraced via the highest standards of democratic consent.

Scandalously, the agreement's brazen "provisional application" clause and low threshold for entry into force aim to circumvent this inviolable democratic requirement. They establish a treacherous slippery slope for states to become bound to this extraordinary transfer of power through a profoundly deficient process insulated from proper scrutiny. This charts an inexorable trajectory toward sublimating national self-governance to an empowered WHO bureaucracy.

The choice to embark on such a perilous course rests with the peoples of the world who will bear the incalculable risks. But to present it as a perfunctory procedural matter devoid of vast constitutional implications is a pernicious deceit. The world stands at a "sovereignty inflection point" that will define the contours of public health governance for generations. Once crossed, there may be no returning to the pre-existing balance of power.

Never in history has any WHO instrument had such a deep, intrusive impact on states' internal legal authority and self-determination on matters of such intimate domestic concern. If ever an international agreement demanded a "Global Constitutional Convention" to meticulously deliberate its rules before irrevocable lock-in, this would be it.

Champions of government by the people over rule by technocratic fiat in public health's life-and-death domain must approach this redefinition of WHO-state relations with maximal wariness. Any abdication of democratic health powers to a distant, unaccountable entity must be rejected absent incontrovertible proof that the benefits vastly outweigh the myriad hazards to accountable national governance.

In the end, the rules that govern a society's most profound matters of life, death and freedom cannot be determined by a cabal of international functionaries behind a veil of secrecy. They must be forged in the crucible of robust domestic democratic validation. The world must not sleepwalk into a "new international health order" without informed consent by the global demos. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Human Rights on the Chopping Block

The agreement pays fleeting lip service to human rights while systematically failing to:

• Concretely differentiate mandatory diktats from voluntary guidance, or affirm nations' non-derogable right to decline WHO orders based on local democratic will (Art. 3);[^10]

• Unequivocally prohibit all forms of vaccine compulsion and discrimination by governments or corporations under the banner of WHO recommendations (Art. 14);[^11]

• Establish "sunset clauses" on emergency powers and guarantee citizens due process rights to legally contest disproportionate WHO-rationalized liberty restrictions (Art. 19);[^12]

• Decisively foreclose the censorship and suppression of scientific dissent, no matter how "misinformation"-maligned during declared crises (Art. 18).[^13]

The deafening silence on bedrock civil liberties treaties like the ICCPR and Siracusa Principles, which stringently constrain "emergency" overreach, unmistakably signals that the agreement's paramount aim is permanently dismantling human rights guardrails, not upholding them.[^14]

Its platitudinous "equity" rhetoric is a trojan horse for enabling the very state-sponsored coercion and criminalization of bodily autonomy witnessed during Covid, only with binding international imprimatur.[^15]

Public Health Policy Driven by Corporate Agenda

The R&D and regulatory harmonization language reads like a shameless Big Pharma wishlist singularly focused on rubber stamping patented vaccines and medicines over generic solutions while demolishing guardrails (Art. 9, 14).[^16] Lowering approval standards to the lowest common denominator and "relying" on WHO rulings would eviscerate the rigorous national quality controls that are the last line of defense for patient safety.[^17]

Meanwhile, the expansive technology transfer provisions throw open the floodgates for countries and companies to be stripped of proprietary genetic and biological assets under an ill-defined "equity" crusade.[^18] The unmistakable upshot is to turbocharge captive product markets and liability-free profits under the guise of access.[^19] Breathtaking conflicts of interest as with Covid contracts are all but guaranteed absent safeguards.[^20]

Pandemic Pathogen Trafficking Nightmare

The "Pathogen Sharing" system enshrined in Article 12 to encourage countries to hand over dangerous germs is a pandora's box devoid of even rudimentary biosafety and verification protocols to prevent catastrophic releases.[^21] Instead of shutting the sieve of shoddy "gain-of-function" research exposed by Covid's origins, it doubles down on transferring deadly bugs to reckless facilities under "equitable access."[^22]

Unfathomably, there are zero concrete requirements for monitoring the chain of custody, restricting access, reporting mishaps or holding facilities liable for world-wrecking leaks.[^23] Most shockingly, this nightmarish "biodefense" boondoggle is to be administered entirely outside domestic democratic control.[^24] A more perfect storm for the next lab-spawned pandemic engineered by unscrupulous actors is hard to imagine.[^25]

Obliteration of Informed Consent in Medicine

Articles 9-11 and 14 lumping all pandemic "countermeasures" together for "expedited" approval with no distinction between proven vs. experimental interventions effectively demolish bedrock informed consent requirements for unapproved drugs and vaccines.[^26] These were the single most critical medical ethics breakthrough of the 20th century following the Nuremberg Nazi atrocities, enshrined in the Helsinki Declaration and Belmont Report to stop human experimentation without voluntary assent.[^27] [^28]

The agreement shockingly contains zero mention of these inviolable principles while sneaking in language to sidestep gold-standard safety testing protocols that might slow down the rubber-stamping of Pharma inventions like mRNA via EUA loopholes.[^29] Real-world injury data like VAERS on these rushed injections' toll powerfully attest to the mortal dangers of this reckless model, fatal blood clots and shattered immune systems be damned.[^30] Shattering the "right of refusal" for invasive government-Pharma products on the international stage would be an unconscionable crime against humanity.[^31]

Big Pharma-Gates Stranglehold on Science

The proposed governance structure concentrates all decision-making in a quasi-accountable assembly, committees and panels stacked with ideologically captured Gates Foundation-Gavi "experts" religiously committed to proprietary one-size-fits-all biomedical solutions over nuanced local responses.[^32] There is no real pipeline for contrarian researchers who challenged the calamitous failures of Covid orthodoxy on lockdowns, masks, generic drugs, alternative treatments or natural immunity to penetrate this groupthink cartel.[^33] [^34]

Even more egregiously, the "civil society" engagement provisions are a brazen power play by pharma and philanthro-capitalist lobbies to cement their already obscene domination of policy to the total exclusion of dissenting public interest advocates.[^35] Their economic and political capture of the global health agenda would be complete, unaccountable, and irreversible.

Institutionalized "State of Emergency" Abuse

Alarmingly, the agreement's "provisional application" and low trigger for binding implementation create a treacherous slippery slope for governments to subject their entire populations to its most overreaching terms without any meaningful legislative input let alone a referendum.[^36] Like the EU's widely despised Lisbon Treaty, it establishes an almost irreversible one-way ratchet toward global technocracy over national democracy in the guise of an administrative tweak.[^37]

If allowed to take effect through the stealth of obscure, fast-tracked executive action, citizens everywhere would wake up to discover that their elected representatives had essentially been permanently defanged on the highest matters of individual and societal well-being under the pretext of "preparedness." Escape would become all but impossible as a practical matter.[^38]

Forging a Free and Humane Global Health Order

In sum, this agreement embodies an intolerable frontal assault on democratic sovereignty, constitutional order and fundamental freedoms that were achieved through centuries of historic popular struggle. Its unaccountable "Pandemic Czar" model empowered to trample basic rights and self-government via fiat by Tedros is the antithesis of an inclusive, tolerant and rules-based international health system.

So profound and far-reaching a transformation of global health law negotiated in secret, with virtually no public awareness let alone informed consent, fails the most elementary tests of popular legitimacy.[^39] The utter lack of transparency regarding conflicts of interest and ideological agendas that potentially influenced the drafting only compound this indefensible subversion of deliberative due process.[^40]

An instrument of such stupendous consequence for every human being on the planet simply cannot be decided by a minuscule clique of unrepresentative elites anointed as saviors. It unquestionably requires a maximally inclusive, ethically impeccable process subjecting every provision to adversarial scrutiny from all quarters of civil society - most critically dissident experts iced out of the official response.[^41] That this never even remotely happened destroys the agreement's moral authority on arrival.

If WHO forces through this irredeemable text in the face of devastating substantiated critiques without radically corrective amendments, Member States will have no real choice but to repudiate both the agreement and the organization as terminal threats to self-determination. Failure to stop this runaway train now may well represent the death knell of the liberal democratic nation-state as we know it.[^42]

Accordingly, the imperative of the hour is to go beyond defense and fundamentally reimagine a new decentralized, locally empowering architecture of global public health cooperation from first principles.[^43] One anchored in maximal transparency, authentic deliberation, robust national sovereignty and individual liberty as non-negotiable preconditions, in diametric opposition to the prevailing "Philanthro-Capitalist" paradigm that has captured the field.[^44]

This will require an unprecedented alliance of free peoples, sovereign governments and public-spirited institutions to claw the reins of history back from a morally desiccated pseudo-elite before it cements the infrastructure of a permanent corporate-biosecurity control grid. The window to forge such a global freedom community ahead of the May 2025 WHA vote is rapidly closing.

• We here at IOJ, are frantically getting our new community site ready so we can meet with you awesome proactive activists every Saturday, noon Eastern time starting next Sat.

We need to realize this existential civilizational inflection point also presents a singular opportunity to reject the siren song of medical collectivism and unleash the bottom-up, adaptive, open-source dynamism of voluntary human cooperation. It’s time. The monumental choice between the well-worn road to technocratic serfdom and the rugged but luminous path of democratic experimentalism has never been clearer - nor the stakes for the future of human dignity more immense.

Is the silent majority prepared to walk into a medicalized dystopia with eyes wide open after the harrowing lessons of 2020-2025? Or will we at long last take our stand on first principles and declare as with one voice that our birthrights shall not be bartered on the international auction block - not on our watch and not ever again?

Share

Donate

The response of the next 3 weeks may very well decide the answer. The Door to Free and DUMB is to move on to other topics, and allow the vote with no real coordinated protests, when this is the most URGENT and SERIOUS. For the sake of generations yet unborn, let us be SMART this round and resolve to meet this momentous hour with the unflinching moral courage that the Sovereign of history demands and prove ourselves worthy of the sacred bequest of liberty-in-law our forebearers so devotedly bestowed unto us. Our forefathers worked hard to give us a system of law and freedom, IoJ will be damned if we let it go that easy.

Dear WHO - No. You cant win this. We won’t allow you to.

We are the Door to Free and SMART. We NEVER STAND DOWN.

WE NEVER LET TYRANTS GET THEIR WAY. CONQUER OR DIE.

Tedros and the overly compliant WHO Member States (192 remain) drool over the concept of PANDEMIC PROFITS!

The Door To Free And DUMB Is Standing Down Now On The Evil Pandemic Treaty Soon To Pass

CHAOS Agents Say Its Fine. It's NOT.

Chaos agents taking credit for "fixing" the treaty about to be signed...THEY SAY, “JUST CHILL…. IT’S ALL FINE” - We FIXED IT AND ITS BENIGN NOW.

But HELLO - ITS A VERY BAD AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT BENIGN - Its very very very dangerous. WAKE THE HELL UP SHEEPLE! Stop listening to controlled chaos!

Sign the Demands Now! IoJ will deliver the signatures to all nations before WHA & FOLLOW UP ON THE PROCESS.

• Sign both on NoticeandDemand.org easy as pie

  • You can help by sharing WHOWatch.org EXPLAINER PAGE far and wide to show people why to sign these - it has info, links to sign the petitions & dates for WHA, etc.

Share

Donate

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Related reading on our saga with WHO:

Footnotes

[^1]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 4, 6, 19. [^2]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 5. [^3]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9-10. [^4]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 12. [^5]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 13-13bis. [^6]: Gostin, Lawrence, The World Health Organization Unveiled: Controversy and Opportunity in Global Health Governance (2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4032804. [^7]: Thomson, Stephen and Ferhani, Eric, The World Health Organization and Global Health Law (2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4192725. [^8]: Habibi, Roojin et al., The Stellenbosch Consensus on Legal National Responses to Public Health Risks, Lancet (2022), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01278-7/fulltext. [^9]: Venkatapuram, S, Rethinking WHO's Structure And Role In Pandemics: Health Equity, Human Rights And Multilateralism, Health Hum Rights (2022), https://www.hhrjournal.org/2022/03/rethinking-whos-structure-and-role-in-pandemics-health-equity-human-rights-and-multilateralism/. [^10]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 3. [^11]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 14. [^12]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 19. [^13]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 18. [^14]: Spadaro, A. COVID-19: Testing the Limits of Human Rights. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 11, 317–325 (2020), https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/covid19-testing-the-limits-of-human-rights/DCC8EFF2B3F1438A87C7BAE230FF82B1. [^15]: Murphy, Therese, Health and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, 2013), https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/health-and-human-rights/ch4-world-health-organization-and-the-right-to-health.
[^16]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9, 14. [^17]: Rizvi, Zain, Expanding Access to Medicines by Rethinking Exclusivities and Addressing Gaps in the Global Pharmaceutical Patent System, Health Affairs (2022), https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20220803.951081/. [^18]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 11-12. [^19]: Herder, Matthew, How Transparent are Drug Companies About Their Clinical Trials?, Slate (2022), https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/pharmaceutical-clinical-trial-data-transparency-solutions.html. [^20]: Thacker, Paul, Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial, BMJ (2021), https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635. [^21]: Gronvall, Gigi, The Interfaces Between Security and Science for Biosecurity and Biotechnology, Committee on Dual Use Research of Concern (2022), https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26600/chapter/11. [^22]: Muller, R., "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" Revisited, Environmental Chemistry Letters (2022), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01509-7. [^23]: Lewis, Dyani, The Shifting Sands of 'Gain-of-Function' Research, Nature (2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x. [^24]: Lipsitch, Marc and Galvani, Alison, Ethical Alternatives to Experiments with Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens, PLoS Med (2014), https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001646. [^25]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 12. [^26]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9-11, 14. [^27]: World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (2013), https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. [^28]: The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html. [^29]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9. [^30]: Rose, Jessica, Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System?, Sci. Publ. Health Pol. & Law (2021), https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_4588b37931024c5d98e35a84acf8069a.pdf. [^31]: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 7. [^32]: Reddy, Srividhya, WHO: The Billion Dollar Question, Maverick Citizen (2022), https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-05-24-who-the-billion-dollar-question/. [^33]: Sridhar, Devi, WHO's Attempt to Navigate Politics in a Polarised World, Think Global Health (2020), https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/whos-attempt-navigate-politics-polarised-world. [^34]: Benkler, Yochai, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics (2018), https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624. [^35]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 16. [^36]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 35. [^37]: Grimm, Dieter, Does Europe Need a Constitution? (2010), https://www.jstor.org/stable/20775782. [^38]: Weiler, J.H.H. and Trachtman, J.P., European Constitutionalism and Its Discontents (1996-1997), https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nwilr17&div=6&src=home. [^39]: Shaffer, G. and Pollack, M.A., Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance (2011), https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/abstracts/article/abs/hard-vs-soft-law-alternatives-complements-and-antagonists-in-international-governance/F4DB11AA3BD9495AA9CCD90F25A7FF5A. [^40]: Mulgan, Richard, Transparency and Public Sector Performance (2014), https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1pwtd1w. [^41]: Smith, Katherine, Securing Circulation Pharmaceutically: Upgrading the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Global Influenza Virus Sharing, BJHS (2021), https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/securing-circulation-pharmaceutically-upgrading-the-efficiency-and-effectiveness-of-global-influenza-virus-sharing/B14B48C00B9BB9F11BA07FD3B9B84194. [^42]: Hudson, Michael, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (2003), https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol15/iss2/4/. [^43]: Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P., Global Business Regulation (2000), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-business-regulation/9DF8EDDF99588B3AAAD0D4F86B72CFF2. [^44]: Youde, Jeremy, Globalization and Health (2007), https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315682648/globalization-health-jeremy-youde.\

[^a]: Thomson, S. and Ferhani, E. The Legality of Using the WHO's Pandemic Treaty to Respond to Future Health Emergencies, EJIL:Talk! (May 10, 2022), https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-using-the-whos-pandemic-treaty-to-respond-to-future-health-emergencies/ [^b]: International Health Regulations (2005), Article 3.4, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580410

That Is, Unless We Act VERY, oVERY Strategically. & Very, Very URGENTLY!

What’s with the WHO Treaty? Well…. It will VERY likely be voted in the week the WHA world health assembly May 26, 2025…. This is not good.

TREATY ON THE BRINK OF PASSING!

NEWEST ALLEGEDLY FINAL DRAFT:

Latest Draft April 12 25 Politico Pandemic Agreement

5.64MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Outstanding Issues

(To Be Finalized April 15):

1. Binding vs. Voluntary Terms:

• The U.S. continues pushing to replace “shall” with “intends” in obligations for developed nations.

2. Pathogen Sample Sharing:

• Debate continues over whether developing countries must share samples before receiving benefits.

3. Inspection Mechanisms:

• No agreement yet on compliance verification procedures.

Important New Elements in the April 12 Draft:

Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS):

• Requires participating companies to provide WHO with “rapid access to 20% of pandemic-related health product production,” including 10% as donations.

• Establishes binding obligations for pathogen data sharing while allowing countries to retain sovereign rights over genetic resources.

One Health Integration:

• Mandates a “coherent, integrated, and collaborative” approach linking human, animal, and environmental health surveillance systems.

Global Supply Chain Network:

• Creates a WHO-coordinated system for equitable distribution of medical countermeasures during emergencies.

Technology Transfer Flexibility:

• Replaces mandatory IP waivers with incentives like licensing agreements and financing conditions to promote voluntary tech sharing.

Resolved Controversies:

Sovereignty Protections: - Explicitly reaffirms “respect for the sovereign rights of States” after addressing concerns about overreach.

Biological Weapons Convention Alignment

New language acknowledges existing bioweapons treaties, addressing critiques about dual-use research risks.

To learn why the WHO Treaty is a serious problem legally & help protest while your voice still counts, please read our brief analysis of the new Draft Treaty in the following updated WHO Treaty Protest petition:

• Coming next is the full analysis which is too long to post here - stay tuned.

Sign below NOW! * Sign below NOW!

Sign here: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/stop-the-pandemic-treaty/

Shttps://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/stop-the-pandemic-treaty/

Accord reached 'in principle' over tackling future pandemics

Delegates will meet tomorrow, on Tuesday in Geneva to put the finishing touches to a landmark text on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and give it their definitive seal of agreement, Amprou added.

The breakthrough, which came after a marathon discussion session stretching for almost 24 hours, was welcomed by enthusiastic applause from the delegates lasting several minutes. [YAAAYYYY THEY ARE SO HAPPY - AND TIRED]

"This is a very good signal. You are part of an incredible history in the making," said the WHO's director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. "This is a good gift to our children and our grandchildren," said Tedros, who remained with delegates throughout the night as they thrashed out an agreement.

French President Emmanuel Macron also welcomed the agreement.

"With the agreement in principle for a pandemic treaty, the international community is creating a new system to better protect us," he posted on X.

Sticking points

Several sources told AFP one of the main sticking points had been paragraph 11, which deals with technology transfer for production of health products related to pandemics -- particularly to benefit developing countries.

Latin American countries are also pushing for facilitation of the transfer. The issue had been a bone of contention in poorer countries during the Covid-19 pandemic, when they say rich nations hoarded vaccine doses and tests.

Several countries where the pharmaceutical industry is a major economic player oppose the idea of mandatory transfers and have insisted on it being voluntary.

One delegate said this point has been resolved, but the latest version of the text was not available as of Saturday afternoon.

US President Donald Trump in January slashed the international aid programme of what had been by far the world's biggest donor nation. The United States was absent from the talks, Trump having said on his return to the White House that his country would leave the WHO, which experts [that are paid by WHO] say will heighten risks to the global health risk surveillance system.

'A lot of upside'

WHO members decided the agreement had to be drawn up in December 2021, two years after the start of the Covid outbreak, which killed millions across the globe and brought the world economy to its knees.

Saturday's text however did not match the scale of WHO member states' initial ambitions, said James Packard Love, executive director of Knowledge Ecology International, an advocacy group.

"The initial proposals put forward by the secretary were quite ambitious (but) that's not the case now," he told AFP.

"As the negotiations have dragged on, the trade people have come in, the industry, people have come in. And some people ask me, is the agreement so weak now that it's not worth doing?" he added.

"I tell people that I think there's a lot of upside for getting an agreement."

"The pandemic agreement will not be perfect," Michelle Childs, head of policy advocacy at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) told AFP.

"It is a product of compromise, and not all ambitions will be met," she added.

"But it will create a crucial new baseline to build on to save lives during the next global health emergency. It is a floor, not a ceiling," said Childs.

Share

NOTICE AND DEMAND TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND MEMBER STATES

RE: Formal Objection to the Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement and Call for Withdrawal

SPECIFIC DEMANDS

We, the undersigned, hereby demand:

Procedural Demands

1. Immediate suspension of this global governance experiment pending comprehensive legal review

2. Implementation of genuinely inclusive public consultation processes

3. Establishment of independent legal review by experts without conflicts of interest

4. Full disclosure of financial relationships between negotiators and pharmaceutical interests

5. Parliamentary oversight and approval in all Member States

6. Binding judicial review pathways for all aspects of implementation

Substantive Demands

1. Explicit incorporation of the Nuremberg Code's informed consent requirements

2. Mandatory incorporation of the Siracusa Principles for any rights limitations

3. Clear supremacy of national constitutions over experimental Agreement provisions

4. Explicit protection for scientific debate and dissenting viewpoints

5. Prohibition of mandatory health data centralization

6. Due process safeguards against "misinformation" determinations

7. Preservation of distinct regulatory frameworks for genetic technologies

8. Comprehensive liability for manufacturers of medical countermeasures

9. Prohibition of discrimination based on medical intervention status

10. Enhanced protections for vulnerable populations regarding experimental interventions

Share

Please donate if you appreciate our efforts to free humanity! This work is tedious and UNDERFUNDED. You can reward work like this today & keep IoJ in the game!

Donate

Leave a comment

Also sign to Nullify IHR Amendments!

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/nullifyihramendments/

Interesting Related Articles

Here we go again - Countries are meeting with WHO right NOW to secure & draft the Pandemic Treaty!

Are “potentially transformative norms and mechanisms” incoming? By Friday?

See the latest video of yesterdays WHO treaty INB meeting - she is wearing green in the video to celebrate the draft by Friday… Things are moving fast, but so can we!

Below is a petition to sign to demand to reject the WHO and their pandemic treaty:

Also, remember to sign the demand to nullify IHR Amendments - there are TWO issues here to protest and both are URGENT! WE MADE YOU TWO EASY FORMS TO SIGN TO HELP EVERYONE JOIN FORCES TO TAKE ACTION! See below!

SIGN TO STOP THE PANDEMIC TREATY!

SIGN NOW - Conquer or die!

SIGN DEMAND: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/stop-the-pandemic-treaty/

Sign Now to Demand Countries Nullify IHR Amendments from 2022 & 2024

SIGN DEMAND: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/nullifyihramendments/

Share

Subscribe now

Help IoJ Sue the WHO

Now to the post:

IoJ recently received the following email from WHO main ethicist Lawrence Gosten and his buddies that comprise the The Panel for a Global Public Health Convention & The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

These are small “elite”, and highly influential groups, and includes the “Grand Dame Commander of the British Empire”.

• Apparently they are already celebrating the treaty as if it will pass. HEADS UP.

• | MORE SECRET W.H.O. INFORMAL AGREEMENTS JUST ENDED MARCH

• THE PUBLIC LAST MEETING OF INB BEFORE THE TREATY VOTE IS THIS WEEK, BEGINNING APRIL 7!

• Here are 2 sessions from today April 7, 2025 on video: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-13-resumed-session.html

NOW LETS HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS LETTER WE RECEIVED THAT SAYS THE WHO PANDEMIC TREATY IS ON TRACK TO PASS & CANT FAIL…

Share

Subscribe now

Keep in mind that this group of Pandemic Peddlers were part of the same cabal that FIRST BEGGED TO GET THE TREATY AND STARTED ALL THE NEGOTIATIONS:

Is the WHO Treaty on track? HELL YES!

Let’s see what they have to say to the countries who are met the past couple weeks in SECRET in the run up to the last April 7, 2025 meeting to finalize the deal:

Help Us Sue the WHO

The Pandemic Agreement: On the Cusp of Making History

STATEMENT BY W.H.O.

WHO Member States made considerable progress in February during the 13^th meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). While familiar gaps remain on prevention and one health, technology transfer, and pathogen access and benefit sharing, Member States have made advances on these potentially transformative norms and mechanisms.

We now urge WHO Member States to make full use of the intersessional period to reach consensus on the outstanding issues before formal negotiations resume in April.

With the adoption of a binding international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – the first of its kind – WHO Member States will make history. The currently agreed provisions, including the principles of solidarity and equity, will redefine how countries combat pandemic threats, from rules to diversify production and strengthen research and development capacities to the creation of a new global supply chain and logistics network.

Not every country will walk away from these negotiations having achieved everything they wanted, but this historic agreement provides a solid foundation for developing new norms, standards and guidelines that can benefit every country well into the future.

Pandemic threats are not waiting for negotiators to finish their work. After years of effort and with the 78^th World Health Assembly fast approaching, the public expects Member States to deliver a strong pandemic agreement that will protect them from these threats.

The world is experiencing cascading crises in an era of populism, nationalism, and political turmoil.

Adoption of an historic treaty at WHO will demonstrate the power and opportunity that comes from international cooperation and solidarity.

Failure is not an option.

The world would benefit for the long term from a pandemic agreement, and we encourage and count on Member States to deliver it by May.

Signed,

The Panel for a Global Public Health Convention

Dame Barbara Stocking, Chair

Angel Gurría

Jane Halton

Lawrence Gostin

Winnie Mpanju-Shumbusho

Jemilah Mahmood

Jorge Saavedra

The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response

The Right Honourable Helen Clark, Co-Chair

HE Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Co-Chair

For more information please contact:

The Panel for a Global Public Health Convention at secretariat@gphcpanel.org

The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response at ChristineMcNab@gmail.com

The Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (PGPHC) is an independent coalition of global leaders working to strengthen the world’s ability to prevent, prepare for, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks before they become pandemics.

The Panel was founded in 2020 and is working with leaders around the world to promote the development of a global public health convention by bridging critical gaps in the global public health architecture and policy frameworks.

To learn more, visit www.gphcpanel.org,
and follow us on Twitter @GPHC_Panel and LinkedIn.

So that was the fear porn being sent to ALL of our countries now:

Share

Subscribe now

“Pandemic threats are not waiting for negotiators to finish their work….”

Help IoJ Sue the WHO

Uh OK… blah, blah, blah… Pandemics are not even a real thing!

TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTEST - LAST CHANCE!

It’s our last chance to win, to stop the treaty, but also the IHR Amendments and the mRNA-PCR Plandemic frauds.

SIGN HERE NOW

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/stop-the-pandemic-treaty/

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/nullifyihramendments/

We have POWER when we take action.

Why should you sign? Because Pandemics are a fraud and a way to steal your rights!

Watch James Roguski explain the deals going down this week on the WHO pandemic treaty and also about the importance of our action to nullify the IHR Amendments.

• Both instruments will be made into firm law at WHA world health assembly the week of May 26 if not prevented.

Watch on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6rqx01-james-roguski-and-the-peaceful-rebel-podcast.html

We are the PERSISTENCE DAMMIT.

• Power to the people who take action with PERSISTENCE!

• Freedom is our legal certainty when we fight using proper law

• HUMANITIES TIME TO ACT IS NOW!

• Take NO prisoners

• Conquer or die!

  ---

Share

Help Us Sue the WHO

Leave a comment

• PLEASE BE AWARE - The WHO Internal Oversight has already referred our disputes to national Authorities and as a result, multiple legal angles are underway to deal with the unprecedented situation.

• Hang tight, we are about to start explaining the saga of IoJ vs WHO et al, where its all at and why we will win! Yes, WHO is going down. Subscribe below:

Sue the WHO Legal Initiative (Idiot's Guide to EXIT the WHO)

International legal procedures. Help convince Member States to EXIT the WHO & invoke human rights instruments. WHOWatch.org/EXITtheWHO, SUEtheWHO.org, StopCrimesAgainstHumanity.org, StopCovidVaccinesNOW.org, GiveSendGo.com/StopCrimesAgainstHumanity

By Interest of Justice

Thanks for your support to do this critical work for humanity. You readers alone fuel our work & we THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS! - love IoJ

Share

Help IoJ Sue the WHO

Leave a comment

THE TREATY IS ONE ISSUE AND THE IHR AMENDMENTS ARE AN INTERRELATED BUT SEPARATE ISSUE:

If you want to learn about the IHR Amendments, AWESOME, this article below has a rather detailed post

Related Articles:

Is this latest pandemic simulation just another Event 201 preplanning scheme?

The exercise simulated an outbreak of a fictional virus spreading across the world.

HELLO: Did you just HEAR THIS?

WHO just convened a multi country pandemic simulation to test, for the first time, a new global coordination mechanism for health emergencies!

Over the past two days, WHO convened more than 15 countries and over 20 regional health agencies, health emergency networks and other partners to test, for the first time, a new global coordination mechanism for health emergencies.

Also, for those who don’t know, the WHO INB is meeting all week - since yesterday April 7, 2025, for the sole purpose to usher in the terrifying WHO Pandemic Treaty.

Sign The NEW Demand To Stop The Pandemic Treaty- Just Finished Drafting Tonight!

WE HAVE 2 PETITIONS - PLEASE SIGN!

Help us protest the WHO IHR Amendments and Pandemic Treaty

NoticeandDemand.org

Sign To Stop The Treaty - https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/stop-the-pandemic-treaty/

Stop IHR Amendments - https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/nullifyihramendments/

4 April 2025 - The two-day simulation, Exercise Polaris, tested WHO’s Global Health Emergency Corps (GHEC), a framework designed to strengthen countries’ emergency workforce, coordinate the deployment of surge teams and experts, and enhance collaboration between countries.

The exercise simulated an outbreak of a fictional virus spreading across the world.

Participating countries included Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Iraq, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia Uganda and Ukraine, with additional countries as observers. Each country participated through its national health emergency coordination structure and worked under real-life conditions to share information, align policies and activate their response.

Regional and global health agencies and organizations, including Africa CDC, European CDC, IFRC, IOM, UNICEF and established emergency networks such as the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, the Emergency Medical Teams initiative, Stand-by partners and the International Association of National Public Health Institutes, worked together to support country-led responses. More than 350 health emergency experts connected globally through this exercise.

Throughout the simulation, countries led their own response efforts while engaging with WHO for coordination, technical guidance and emergency support.

The exercise provided a rare opportunity for governments to test preparedness in a realistic environment, one where trust and mutual accountability were as critical as speed and capacity.

“The exercise sought to put into practice the procedures for inter-agency response to international health threats. Efficient coordination and interoperability processes are key to guaranteeing timely interventions in health emergencies,” said Dr Mariela Marín, Vice Minister of Health of Costa Rica, thanking the Pan American Health Organization for their support and the members of the National Risk Management System for their engagement.

“Polaris demonstrated the critical importance of cultivating trust before a crisis occurs,” said Dr Soha Albayat from Qatar. “The foundation of our collaborative efforts is significantly stronger than in years past. We've moved beyond reactive measures, and are now proactively anticipating, aligning, and coordinating our cross-border emergency response plans.”

“The Global Health Emergency Corps has evolved into a powerful platform, building on practice, trust and connection,” said Dr Mike Ryan, Executive Director of WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme. “Exercise Polaris showed what is possible when countries operate with urgency and unity supported by well-connected partners. It is a strong signal that we are collectively more ready than we were.”

At a time when multilateralism is under pressure and preparedness is often framed through a national lens, Exercise Polaris reaffirmed that health is a global issue.

العربية

中文

Français

Русский

Español

https://www.who.int/news/item/04-04-2025-who-brings-countries-together-to-test-collective-pandemic-response

Share

NOTICE: IoJ is likely the ONLY organization on Earth that is officially willing (and hoping daily) to ACTUALLY Sue the WHO, once the funds are raised. Our organization actually has a great case for crimes against humanity and misconduct which waives their immunity.

Support is very appreciated. IoJ can’t do this alone! Screw the WHO!

Support Sue the WHO Initiative

Leave a comment

If you would like to know more watch James Roguski explain the deals going down this week on the WHO pandemic treaty and also about our action to nullify the IHR Amendments. Both instruments will be made into firm law at WHA world health assembly the week of May 26.

https://rumble.com/v6rqx01-james-roguski-and-the-peaceful-rebel-podcast.html

This is The Very Last Meaningful Opportunity to Prevent an Irreversible Transformation of Global Health Governance that Would Fundamentally Alter the Concept of National Sovereignty as we Have Known It!

Share

This is NOT a drill and not an exaggeration

We just took MONTHS of our lives to draft the MOST IMPORTANT ACTION WE HAVE EVER UNDERTAKEN!!

IoJ has a very important demand for you to sign right now! Please share!

The short easy explanation is in the petition form, so click to read the Cliff’s Notes, or the long detailed version is below for the die hards who want the full details and laws.

SIGN NOW: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/petition/nullifyihramendments/

IoJ will deliver the signatures prior to May 26, 2025 WHA meeting with the WHO.

URGENT: Interest of Justice's Definitive Legal Challenge to the Procedurally Void IHR Amendments Just Sent To 194 Countries!

• Multiple countries have already confirmed receipt of this important dispute including Columbia, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, …………

• More are expected to confirm receipt in the following week or so

• IoJ’s Substack will keep you informed throughout this entire process.

Short Interview About Our IHR Action:

Watch our exclusive interview above with James Roguski about this action: https://rumble.com/v6rrb0l-reject-the-amendments-to-the-international-health-regulations.html

A Precedent-Setting Battle for National Health Policy and Rule of Law To Protect Humanity

We stand at a historic crossroads where the fundamental architecture of global governance is being rewritten through procedurally deficient mechanisms, circumventing centuries of established legal norms. Interest of Justice (IoJ)—uniquely positioned as an officially recognized stakeholder with both legal standing and technical expertise—has uncovered irrefutable evidence of fatal procedural violations in the 2022 and 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). These violations render the amendments void ab initio under jus cogens principles that no nation can legitimately ignore or override.

As the only organization that has meticulously documented these procedural deficiencies and formally invoked Article 56 dispute resolution mechanisms, IoJ has initiated what may be the most consequential legal challenge to supranational overreach in recent history. Our intervention seeks not merely to rectify procedural irregularities but to halt a fundamental restructuring of health sovereignty that would permanently alter the relationship between citizens, their nations, and unelected international authorities.

We got one country to completely reject the WHO Pandemic treaty and we can do this too!

Procedural Nullity and National Subversion

Definitive Procedural Nullity Analysis

On April 5, 2025, Interest of Justice mailed a meticulously documented Notice of Claim and Dispute, invoking Articles 55 and 56 of the IHR and Article 75 of the WHO Constitution. Our legal analysis, grounded in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law, identified fatal procedural defects that render these amendments void under multiple established legal principles.

For the 2022 Amendments, we documented several critical violations: the absence of verified quorum in Committee A proceedings (documentary and video evidence confirms sparse attendance); the omission of the mandatory formal voting process required under Article 73; direct contravention of Rule 85 of the WHO Rules of Procedure, a non-derogable procedural requirement; and chronological documentation revealing rushed adoption without proper deliberative process.

The 2024 Amendments suffer from equally serious defects: clear violation of the mandatory four-month notice period codified in Article 55(2); transmission of amendments on February 20, 2024—precisely three months before the May 20, 2024 Assembly; systematic circumvention of the temporal requirement established to ensure adequate sovereign review; and documentary evidence confirming member states received final text only hours before purported adoption.

These violations are not minor technicalities but fundamental breaches of established international law principles. In German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (1926), the Permanent Court of International Justice established that procedural requirements constitute the "essential validity" of international instruments. The International Court of Justice reinforced this in Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (2002), confirming that procedural requirements for treaty adoption constitute "rules of fundamental importance" whose violation renders subsequent actions void ab initio. Most recently, in Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan, 2019), the ICJ reaffirmed that "procedural conditions... constitute essential safeguards for the proper operation of the rule of law." The court held that violations of these safeguards render resulting acts "legally void and without effect."

Substantive National Policy Subversion?

Beyond procedural deficiencies, our legal team has conducted a line-by-line analysis of the amendments, revealing an unprecedented assault on national sovereignty.

The amendments establish mandatory "Relevant Health Products" and mRNA technology requirements through Article 13bis(3), which explicitly empowers the WHO to "identify relevant health products" that member states "shall undertake to support the production and availability of." This provision, when read in conjunction with Article 12 emergency powers, creates a binding obligation to accept and distribute novel medical technologies, including mRNA platforms. Article 13bis(4) further removes sovereign risk assessment by requiring states to "follow WHO guidance" on implementation, with no carve-outs for nationally-determined safety assessments or sovereign medical regulatory authority.

The digital health certificate infrastructure mandated by Article 35(1)(i) requires "recognition of digital health documents" based on WHO-specified standards, creating foundational architecture for immunity passport systems and digital verification of compliance with medical interventions. Article 35(2) explicitly subordinates border sovereignty to WHO digital standards, establishing technical infrastructure for mobility restrictions based on medical status.

Privacy protections are severely compromised through the new Article 44A(1)(c), which mandates "sharing of genetic sequence data" with no meaningful privacy protections. This creates obligatory reporting channels for genomic and biological data without informed consent protections. Article 44A(2) grants WHO authority to "re-purpose" this data without sovereign oversight, with no meaningful limitations on third-party access to biological data of citizens.

The amendments also expand quarantine powers beyond scientific necessity. Amended Article 18(1) expands authority to detain upon mere "suspicion" of exposure, with no evidence threshold established for detention determinations, no due process requirements for quarantine implementation, no compensation mechanisms for economic losses from arbitrary detention, and shifts the burden of proof to detained individuals to prove non-infection.

Perhaps most concerningly, the amendments create self-referential emergency declaration powers. Article 12(2) permits declaration of emergencies based on "potential" threats with no objective criteria. Combined with Article 49(5), this creates circular authority where WHO can simultaneously define, detect, and declare emergencies. Testing protocols are explicitly removable from sovereign oversight under Article 42, allowing PCR and other diagnostic methodologies to be manipulated through cycle threshold adjustments to manufacture case rates without clinical correlation.

This combination of procedural violations and substantive overreach constitutes what international legal scholar Professor Eyal Benvenisti describes as "the perfect storm of sovereignty erosion" in his 2023 analysis of international health law trends.

IoJ Has A Strategic Roadmap For This Global Legal and Institutional Challenge

Interest of Justice has developed a meticulously structured strategy informed by successful precedents in international law to challenge and nullify these procedurally void amendments. The following delineates our technical roadmap with specific success metrics for each phase.

Share

Subscribe now

1. Formal Dispute Resolution Through Progressive Invocation of Article 56

We have executed the first phase of Article 56 dispute resolution through our April 5th Notice of Claim. This initiates a sequential legal process with defined success metrics:

Phase 1: Initial Notification (Completed) We have formally invoked Vienna Convention Articles 46 and 65, documented procedural violations under Rule 85 and Article 55(2), and established a 30-day response window for production of contrary evidence. Our success metric of documentation of receipt by at least 150 member states' missions, foreign ministries, and health ministries has been achieved.

Phase 2: Escalation Pathways (Days 31-90) We will engage in bilateral and multilateral diplomatic engagement with responsive states, formally request Director-General mediation per Article 56(2), prepare comprehensive legal briefing documenting non-compliance, and invoke the seldom-utilized "fundamental change of circumstances" doctrine (rebus sic stantibus). Success metrics include formal acknowledgment of procedural concerns by minimum 10 member states, official response from WHO legal counsel, and documentation of refusal/failure to produce evidence of procedural compliance.

Phase 3: Judicial and Arbitral Mechanisms (Days 91-365) We will formally request binding arbitration for consenting states under Article 56(3), prepare for Permanent Court of Arbitration proceedings, develop alternative ICJ pathways through Article 75 of WHO Constitution, and strategically use "urgent exception" procedures for expedited consideration. Success metrics include filing of at least 3 formal declarations accepting arbitration jurisdiction, establishment of procedural calendar for hearings, and formal recording of WHO's legal position on procedural requirements.

2. Costa Rican Constitutional Challenge

Our Costa Rican legal intervention leverages specific constitutional mechanisms with precise benchmarks:

Our procedural strategy involves dual-track filing of both recurso de amparo (fundamental rights protection) and acción de inconstitucionalidad (constitutional compatibility review), invocation of Article 7 constitutional supremacy of properly ratified international agreements, expert testimony establishing "manifest" nature of procedural violations, and direct application of pacta sunt servanda and customary international law principles. Our success metric is admission of both filings with judicial acknowledgment of prima facie case.

For jurisdictional framework, we are establishing standing through Costa Rican domicile (as referenced in our legal entity registration), applying Resolution No. 9685-2000 precedent on judicial review of procedural treaty defects, utilizing actio popularis doctrine for matters of public interest, and requesting precautionary measures suspending national implementation. Our success metric is granting of precautionary measures suspending Costa Rican implementation.

Our timeline and benchmarks include constitutional filing preparation (45 days, in progress), initial admissibility determination (15 days post-filing), substantive hearing (60-90 days post-admission), and resolution timeline (120-180 days from initial filing). Our success metric is a favorable substantive ruling declaring amendments procedurally defective.

3. Strategic Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation Approach

We have developed a scientifically-structured matrix of jurisdictions based on successful international law challenges:

Jurisdiction Key Precedent Strategic Value Timeline Costa Rica Resolution No. 9685-2000 Established procedural review Q2 2025 South Africa Glenister v. President (2011) Strict procedural compliance doctrine Q3 2025 India PUCL v. Union of India (2003) Public interest standing Q3 2025 Caribbean Court of Justice Trinidad Cement v. Guyana (2009) Treaty procedure enforcement Q4 2025 Poland Constitutional identity doctrine EU precedent on procedure Q4 2025

This approach follows the successful model established in the 2017 nuclear weapons prohibition treaty challenges, where multi-jurisdictional filings created sufficient legal uncertainty to force procedural reconsideration.

4. Technical Documentation and Evidentiary Repository

Our comprehensive documentation framework includes forensic-grade evidence through a Legal Evidentiary Repository. This includes forensic video analysis of Committee A proceedings with attendance tracking, verified transmission timeline documentation with cryptographic timestamps, comparative analysis of amendment text versions demonstrating late-stage substantive changes, and indexed repository of all official communications demonstrating notice deficiencies. Our success metric is completion of court-admissible evidence packages for all five priority jurisdictions.

5. Legislative and Parliamentary Engagement Strategy

Building on successful models from the Law of the Sea Treaty challenges, we are developing technical briefings for parliamentary oversight committees in key jurisdictions, model legislative resolutions declaring amendments procedurally invalid, parliamentary inquiry templates regarding domestic ratification procedures, and oversight hearing preparation materials for legislative committees. Our success metric is formal parliamentary inquiries launched in minimum of seven national legislatures.

Additional Alarming Provisions Worth Examining

A line-by-line forensic examination of the amendments reveals additional concerning provisions that have received inadequate scrutiny:

1. Mandatory Implementation of "Temporary Recommendations" - Article 15(3)

The amended Article 15(3) fundamentally transforms the nature of WHO "recommendations" by stating that member states "shall implement temporary recommendations within 48 hours," converting previously non-binding guidance into binding legal obligations. The verbatim text in Article 15(3) now states that "States Parties shall implement temporary recommendations issued under this Article within 48 hours of issuance, unless otherwise indicated." This change produces several significant legal effects: it transforms advisory recommendations into mandatory directives, bypasses national legislative approval processes for implementation of international obligations, grants direct regulatory authority to the Director-General during declared emergencies, and contradicts WHO's 75-year history of respecting state sovereignty in recommendation implementation.

2. Universal Censorship Framework - Article 44A(2)(e)

The amendments establish mandatory "infodemic management" through Article 44A(2)(e), creating an unprecedented international censorship architecture. The verbatim text requires states to "collaborate in addressing misinformation and disinformation" as defined by WHO. The implementation mechanism creates "collaboration centers" with authority to flag and request removal of content, with no provisions for independent review of censorship decisions. WHO and "relevant health products" manufacturers receive special protection from criticism as a protected class, and the provision supersedes national speech protections through binding international obligation.

3. One Health Surveillance Expansion - Article 5(1)

The amendments expand WHO authority beyond human disease into unprecedented domains. The verbatim text extends surveillance to the "human-animal-environment interface" and "antimicrobial resistance." The practical effect establishes supranational authority over agricultural, veterinary, and environmental domains, creates external control mechanisms over agricultural practices, food production, and land use, and represents what Dr. Mercola's legal analysis correctly identifies as "mission creep" establishing jurisdiction over virtually all human activity.

4. Self-Financing Emergency Powers - Article 44A(6)

The amendments create a concerning economic structure that incentivizes emergency declarations. The verbatim text establishes a "Financial Intermediary Fund" that activates upon emergency declarations, creating an institutional financial benefit from declaring emergencies. This creates circular authority where WHO declares emergencies that activate resources under WHO control, explicitly partners with companies producing "relevant health products" as corporate beneficiaries, and creates binding financial commitments from member states triggered by WHO declarations.

5. mRNA Technology Prioritization - Article 13bis(5)

Most concerning is the explicit technology preference encoded in Article 13bis(5). The verbatim text states: "States Parties shall prioritize mRNA and other rapidly scalable manufacturing platforms in relevant health product distribution." This creates a binding obligation to prioritize specific technology platforms regardless of emerging safety data, financially benefits specific patent holders of platform technologies, encodes specific technology preferences into binding legal framework, and shields manufacturers from liability while mandating product distribution. Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of Allergy and Respiratory Research at Pfizer, has specifically warned: "This provision effectively creates a global captive market for specific technologies with inadequate safety monitoring frameworks, bypassing established regulatory protocols meant to ensure medical interventions meet basic safety standards."

Share

Subscribe now

Personal Commitment To Health Justice: Why Interest of Justice Is Uniquely Positioned

As leadership of Interest of Justice, we bring both professional commitment and unique qualifications to this challenge:

"Our team has spent over three years meticulously tracking the procedural developments of these amendments. We have obtained and analyzed the critical video evidence of the Committee A proceedings where the 2022 amendments were adopted without proper quorum, clearly showing sparse attendance. This video documentation provides irrefutable evidence of the procedural violations.

Most tellingly, Costa Rica's Vice President has confirmed in writing that in both 2022 and 2024, member states simply 'agreed' to the amendments, effectively admitting that proper rules and procedures were disregarded. This extraordinary admission—that the established procedural rules were deemed irrelevant—underscores the fundamental nature of our challenge.

When we received documentation confirming the February 20, 2024 transmission date of the amendments—precisely one month short of the required notice period—we recognized this as the definitive evidence needed for a formal challenge. Our official stakeholder status with the INB gives us unique standing that no other organization possesses to mount this challenge.

With sufficient support, we plan to assemble a team of international legal experts who have previously succeeded in nullifying improper international instruments. This isn't merely a legal exercise—it's about preserving the fundamental architecture of national sovereignty in health governance."

- Dustin Bryce, Co-Director, Interest of Justice

IoJ’s Success and Accountability ‘Framework to Freedom’

To ensure complete transparency in resource utilization, we have established measurable success metrics:

1. Procedural Documentation: Complete evidentiary packages submitted to minimum 5 judicial forums

2. Judicial Engagement: Formal admissibility determinations in minimum 3 jurisdictions

3. State Responses: Formal acknowledgment of procedural concerns from minimum 10 member states

4. Precautionary Measures: Suspension of implementation in at least 2 jurisdictions pending resolution

5. Substantive Ruling: Minimum 1 binding judicial determination on procedural validity

Regular updates on these metrics will be provided to all supporters, ensuring complete accountability for all resources committed to this critical legal battle.

Precisely Calibrated Support Requirements

Your participation in this historic legal challenge directly enables specific tactical components of our multi-jurisdictional strategy:

Strategic Investment Framework

Share

Subscribe now

• $100 Funds certified translation of procedural documentation for one jurisdiction Enables court filing in one non-English speaking jurisdiction

• $250 Secures sworn affidavit from procedural expert on Vienna Convention violations Provides authoritative testimony on procedural nullity $500 Enables forensic video analysis of Committee A proceedings Creates court-admissible evidence of quorum absence

• $1,000 Funds local counsel filing fees in one priority jurisdiction Initiates formal judicial review in key legal system

• $2,500 Finances complete documentary package with authentication for ICJ submission Establishes comprehensive evidence record for highest tribunal

• $5,000 Secures | legal representation for one complete constitutional challenge Ensures comprehensive representation through entire proceeding

• $10,000+ Enables complete multi-jurisdictional implementation in one regional bloc Creates legal cascade effect across multiple legal systems

Strategic Impact Beyond Financial Support

Your contribution extends beyond financial support, creating force-multiplying effects through technical expertise mobilization and diplomatic and legislative influence.

In terms of technical expertise mobilization, each financial contribution enables engagement of specific technical experts. Every $5,000 secured allows us to commission one comprehensive expert opinion. Technical documentation funded becomes available for all subsequent proceedings, and each jurisdictional success creates binding precedent usable in other forums.

For diplomatic and legislative influence, success in initial jurisdictions creates diplomatic leverage for state resistance. Each judicial determination strengthens parliamentary opposition in other nations. Formal recognition of procedural defects by one court influences other jurisdictions, and each precautionary measure granted creates template for similar applications elsewhere.

The Critical Window for Taking Action IS NOW

This legal challenge represents the most consequential defense of national sovereignty and procedural integrity in international law in recent history. The procedurally void amendments to the International Health Regulations are not merely technical violations but represent a fundamental restructuring of the relationship between citizens, nations, and unaccountable international authorities.

As the eminent legal scholar H.L.A. Hart observed, "procedural regularity is the minimum condition for any recognizable system of law." The amendments' provisions explicitly targeting mRNA technology deployment, creating unprecedented surveillance authorities, establishing global censorship frameworks, and transferring diagnostic sovereignty strike at the heart of self-governance and informed consent.

Interest of Justice stands in a unique position at this pivotal moment:

• we possess officially recognized stakeholder status, giving us standing other organizations lack;

• we have meticulously documented the procedural violations with forensic precision;

• we have formally invoked Article 56 dispute resolution mechanisms;

• we have established the legal infrastructure for multi-jurisdictional challenges;

• and we have assembled the specialized legal expertise in the precise domains required.

What we lack—unlike the powerful institutional forces backing these amendments—is the financial resources to execute this comprehensive legal strategy we worked so long and hard to execute to date. Your contribution does not merely support our work; it directly enables specific tactical components of our strategy with measurable impact. We simply wont succeed without your support.

The window for effective legal intervention is rapidly narrowing.

Our formal dispute claim has initiated time-sensitive procedural clocks, and constitutional challenges must be filed before domestic implementation renders them moot. Your immediate support is therefore not merely helpful but essential to the viability of this unprecedented legal effort.

"At critical moments in history, the actions of a small group of principled, determined individuals have altered the course of governance for generations. This is such a moment, and our legal intervention represents perhaps the last meaningful opportunity to prevent an irreversible transformation of global health governance that would fundamentally alter the concept of national sovereignty as we have known it." — Dustin Bryce and Lady Xylie, Interest of Justice

Interest of Justice is an International Civil Society Organization officially recognized as stakeholders by the W.H.O. Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) in matters related to Pandemic Preparedness and Response, as well as the IHR amendments process. We maintain strict independence from pharmaceutical industry funding, governmental influence, and supranational organizations.

Working For God and to Empower Humanities Triumph Over Evil

Conquer or DIE - This mission must succeed

Someone needs to do this, and we are frankly surprised no other org stepped in who actually has the means, so we don’t really have a choice because no other org is a civil society stakeholder that cares enough to do all this work we did pro bono.

It’s life or death. Conquer or die!

Here we are at humanities last meaningful opportunity to prevent an irreversible transformation of global health governance that would fundamentally alter the concept of national sovereignty as we have known it.

You can help IoJ truly protect humanity by helping us take MASSIVE GLOBAL LEGAL ACTION to declare INVALID these rushed and illegal IHR Amendments. Thank you!

HOW MUCH WILL THIS FIGHT COST?

Resource Requirements & Strategic Financial Plan

This unprecedented legal challenge obviously requires precisely calculated resources to counter the immense globalist and institutional forces supporting these IHR amendments:

Estimated Legal Intervention Budget Requirements

• Component Technical Requirements Tactical Application Estimated Cost (USD) Article 56 Dispute Resolution Legal representation, forensic documentation Direct challenge through IHR mechanisms $75,000-125,000

• Costa Rican Constitutional Challenge Local counsel, expert witnesses Judicial precedent creation $60,000-85,000

• Multi-Jurisdictional Matrix Implementation Jurisdiction-specific counsel Strategic litigation cascade $90,000-150,000

• Documentary Evidence Repository Forensic analysis, certified translations Evidentiary foundation $40,000-65,000

• Expert Affidavits and Technical Opinions International law scholars Authoritative support $35,000-50,000

• Parliamentary Engagement Technical briefings, model resolutions Legislative resistance $30,000-45,000

Estimated Total Core Legal Budget $330,000-520,000 - This is so important, we can NOT fail or let them get away with this. It’s how the next attack would be fomented!

Thank you all for sharing, caring, supporting, commenting, learning, and TAKING ACTION!

Share

Donate Sue The WHO

Leave a comment