IoJ Sends WHO GPW14 Steering Committee Notice Of Claim On Why They Are Incorrect That WHO Has Added Value To The Health Ecosystem And Explains WHO's Detriment To The Health Ecosystem

Under the rules the WHO has 8 days to respond to these very serious charges, let's see what happens!

The World Health Organization invited us last week to comment and provide input on the general program of work GPW14 which insists that there is a broad consensus that the WHO provides an added benefit to the health ecosystem. The input is for the WHO steering committee’s final paper that will be presented to States mid December, in around 1 week from now. We hope that our input will finally be taken seriously in order to protect the health and safety of the entire international community.

IMPORTANT & Urgent: WHO Just Asked IOJ, Civil Society & States To Give Feedback On The Development Of WHO's 14th General Programme of Work (GPW14) for the period 2025-2028. Help Us Respond.

For everybody who participated and sent us responses we are gathering those by tonight and send them as a batch of comments to the WHO Secretariat. This is your last call and chance to be on the record as opposing the WHO GPW14 agenda which includes SDG’s and other many horrible responses such as “misinformation” programs. Thank you so much for everyone who sent us letter to give to the WHO, we appreciate you so much and thank you for being bold and stepping up!

We rebut this presumption and explain why the world health organization is in serious breach of obligation owed to the entire world to not experiment on people and to not censor people who complain about how horrible the WHO’s pseudo science is.

We wrote this to advise the UN and WHO that we are not satisfied as marginalized interested and relevant stakeholders with their service. We explain how the are literally facilitating biological agent experiments which even in their own rules prevent as completely unethical.

It is our intention to rebut every presumption that the UN and WHO makes because it is our mission to hold them responsible for declaring COVID as an emergency in a way which violates international law and allows for the crime of serious undue experimentation on humanity. We sent this to the ethics department as a notice of claim which has 8 days to respond to and we do this in order to exhaust all remedies so that humanity will have standing to Sue The W.H.O.!

Under their own rules, they have 8 days to respond to this type of notice of claim of serious breaches and wrongdoing.

If you think we are doing a great job, please support our legal fund because we have many legal expenses to take on the legal battle against the WHO global health monopoly which needs your support to ensure humanities success.

Below is the report we just issued from IOJ on December 6, 2023, to the Secretariat for the GPW14 Steering Committee to REJECT the inhumane and unethical WHO health guidance, policies and FUNDING for 2025-2028:

GPW14 CSO Collaborative report regarding the consultation document:

Advancing health equity and health systems resilience in a turbulent world – a global health agenda for 2025-2028 Promoting, providing and protecting health and wellbeing WHO’s Fourteenth General Programme of Work

To: GPW14 steering committee

December 6, 2023

Dear Friends,

We represent a wide variety of marginalized and vulnerable relevant and interested stakeholders including world class scientific experts and many global actor CSO's who have not been heard for 3 years on our issues.

Many of our CSO's and experts have proof of being censored directly by WHO in the UN "information management" programs, which is a very serious breach of WHOs international obligations owed erga omnes which must not be further funded or else WHO is responsible for human rights violations they refuse to resolve and keep trying to further fund, such as in the GPW14 plan.

Free Speech Association was censored in the 1st GPW14 "consultation" and was not able to consult on issues of critical importance to this current GPW14 as well as the IHR amendments, treaty and accountability.

For this reason of WHO's overt censorship in the 1st GPW14 consultation hearing we believe the omission of our ideas is not an accidental oversight to not include our ideas and concerns in the report. To us, we cannot help but presume the censorship in the first consultation meeting is so that WHO can write falsely in the consultation document and pretend to member States that there is a "broad consensus" when in reality we represent the majority of scientists and civil society organizations which do not want most of the policies being funded in the GPW14.

Pg.1

We bring very serious ethical and legal issues to your attention regarding some of the agendas in GPW14, and because the issue of us being censored in the 1st consultation meeting is so serious we are also sending this GPW14 consultation report as a notice of claim.

We keep trying to get justice, responses, and remedy in the WHO ethics by filing charges with right of reply, all of which remain unanswered and the issues unattended by WHO. Please see our public participation video May 3, 2023 HHS Stakeholder Listening Session https://rumble.com/v2lwy0c-ioj-speaking-truth-to-power-exposing-w.h.o.-crimes-may-3-2023- hhs-stakehold.html

There are issues with the GPW14 which our report outlines, must be addressed and included in your mid December final paper, otherwise the final paper is not truly inclusive or equitable. We need your extra assistance to meaningfully participate and not just keep ignoring us. We are the ONLY oversight CSO and we have personally experienced a situation which makes us defenseless. Please help us be heard and included by adding in our CSO's ideas from our joint report and please rebut all presumptions with data and evidence.

CSO Collaborative report regarding the consultation document: Advancing health equity and health systems resilience in a turbulent world – a global health agenda for 2025-2028 Promoting, providing and protecting health and wellbeing WHO’s Fourteenth General Programme of Work

Part 1 of GPW 14 describes the rather stark global context for the next four years and sets the scene for a global health agenda:

To begin, we dispute the presumption that there is a broad consensus between CSO's and all stakeholders that WHO has a unique added value in the global health ecosystem. To the contrary based on the following reasons we are clearly articulating WHO’s lack of unique added value in the global health ecosystem and instead highlighting the detrimental aspects of WHO's direction and control of public health goods and global PPR guidance.

Pg. 2

The issue of climate change is not as stark as the alarmist UN-WHO makes it out to be. We call upon WHO to stop censoring the climate experts and instead host an open debate. Free Speech Association was censored by WHO in the first GPW14 consultation meeting October 30, 2023 for quoting UN saying "we own the science" about climate change when we were trying to consult with other CSO's about climate change alarmism and our concerns that UN-WHO are literally censoring critics in a partnership with rigging Google algorithms to show UN climate science first. Please see our publication from October 31, 2023 https://open.substack.com/pub/interestofjustice/p/who-censored-free-speech-associations

We call upon WHO to show us the science, with an open public hearing debate with the many thousands of climate experts who say UN is over inflating the fear factor and using cherrypicked modeling to justify the SDG's and many other agreements for unnecessary decarbonization UN programs. The science to back up the WHO's presumptions of a stark next 4 years based on "The pace of climate change and environmental degradation has accelerated, emerging as the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century". These are climate emergency unproven theories, and then to claim WHO can fix those unproven problems with funding for enormous societal changes (which are unproven experimental interventions affecting all sectors of society in the SDG's & Agenda 2030) is so contentious it all must be proven as valid, which so far its not yet proven to a majority of experts outside UN.

We refute the presumptions in the consultation document #5 as false at worst and unproven because its so widely disputed by top experts at best:

• Global temperatures are absolutely not continuing to rise and are not expected to exceed 1.5oC over pre-industrial levels by 2030 according to the unequivocal rules of science.

• Severe weather events are the same as usual

• microbial breaches of the animal-human species barrier are not increasing

• And there is evidence to disprove WHO's false claim that climate-sensitive epidemic diseases are increasing in frequency across the globe.

Pg. 3

We are very concerned with the UN-WHO "information management" and "behavior" programs, which as applied in reality, are tools of WHO, private partners like Google and member states to deprive people of rights to free expression under color of "Public health law". WHO is partnering with Google and other social media to censor critics which we believe is an international security threat. It is unethical and prohibited under international law to persecute groups that disagree with WHO science, and a literal crime against humanity that must be ended immediately to fulfill WHO's international human rights obligations, not funded and further strengthened under the guise of combatting misinformation. Truth is censored by WHO calling it false science and this must end immediately if WHO is to have any credibility in the ethical realm. WHO has no authority in their constitution or rules to define misinformation based on "evolving science" and censor discussion. This situation of WHO defining misinformation to censor critics violates international law and we have personally experienced the wrath of WHO's imbalance of power, WHO's politicization and WHO's censorship and persecution. Rather than fund WHO in this role, we very strongly recommend that WHO is responsible for cessation of these programs and full reparations for limiting the flow of information. Social media partnerships with WHO such as Trusted News Initiative, The Program to Combat Misinformation and Roumours has been a contributor to polarization and politicization far more than any contributing factor because social media companies politicize WHO alleged science as the only acceptable science we can discuss. This is due to partnerships of UN with Google, social media, media. We were censored by WHO on October 30, 2023 in the GPW14 consultation when we posted about the UN partnership with Google to rig the algorytthm because "UN owns the science". We were also censored by Youtube for discussing court cases to defend human rights which were true and the basis of our video being censored is we were told we violated Youtube's policy on misinformation, which Youtube explained expressly will not allow anything that disputes the WHO. This is so dangerous to free speech and the social order as well as trust in the Public Health leadership of the non functional WHO that systematically violates human rights which is an international security threat. WHO even ironically and tyrannically censored Free Speech Association in the first consultation meeting for GPW14 which is ample cause to not allow WHO to ever be in control of any coordinated

Pg. 4

internet governance scheme. As a strict matter of international human rights law the WHO should never partner with a private entity to politicize health discussions about WHO's unproven interventions or their failures, but that is exactly what is occurring under these highly dubious UN programs. We beg you to stop and think of the alleged "misinformation" policies impacts on us, our rights and our inability as stakeholders to convey important information in WHO's benefit. As anti-corruption oversight we find it worth mentioning that the WHO's hard stance on what is true or false in science exceeds discretionary powers and is often wrong. There is a serious gap in needed oversight by us science diplomacy and anti-corruption task force CSO's because we just get ignored in ethics complaints and censored in GPW14 consultations and on Youtube. We can prove WHO is not correct on many scientific, legal and ethical issues but they wont let us speak to the world. This is terrifying. Please do not allow WHO misinformaton, infodemic and information management programs into the future and our CSO's strongly recommend that the decision makers do not allow these policies in the final paper.

We are also very alarmed at the following statement: "WHO will scale up its strategic communications to promote the individual behaviours needed to improve health, influence policy change, promote health seeking behaviour and combat misinformation. The WHO is literally engaging in funding global behavioral nudging programs for "vaccine uptake" of a EUL unproven novel vaccine intervention outside clinical trials which by WHO's own guidance "ethical considerations of unproven interventions" is PROHIBITED. In Costa Rica WHO rolled out a behavior and misinformation program on intellectually disabled people and told them covid vaccines "are like a shield" and that it will prevent them from catching covid which in itself is misinformation and a lie which negates the validity of the WHO's behavior and misinformation programs: please see our publication from October 23, 2023 WHO-PAHO Admits "Targeting" Vulnerable Indigenous and Disabled People In Costa Rica To Take COVID-19 Experimental Jabs.

WHO lied and said they were combating misinformation. How do you fix this? By not funding it and calling it what it is: a serious breach of international obligation owed erga omnes to not gain consent by deception and manipulation. Our role as oversight is to take these matter to a judicial venue in order to bring WHO back into compliance within their

Pg. 5

own rules and guidelines if this serious breach of WHO to not censor and manipulate and gain consent for vaccine uptake continues. The GPW14 is where it should end, not be funded.

We are very concerned with the following statement in #42: "WHO will focus its core technical work and global public goods for health on the 2025-2028 strategic objectives and priorities by leveraging and scaling its science, evidence and innovation functions – including through the organization’s norms and standards, regulatory and product prequalification work" We need to talk to a boss, but DG Tedros wont answer to our multiple charges in ethics. WHO is in serious breach of international obligations through the WHO pre-qualification program which is about to be sued for breach of function and causing serious undue experimentation, a crime. Please invite us to a hearing to discuss the fact that mRNA on the EUL list and treated as if the experimental gene therapy is a health product is illegal under many Member States biomedical research laws and unethical under the WHO's own guidance. This is an enormous problem for WHO and States who continue to follow WHO's actions of global "vaccine uptake" programs, rather than this guidance. The ethical duty to prevent the violations of the WHO MEURI ethical framework also goes for the committee on the GPW14, who should know the mRNA global rollout is unethical for omitting what is required for informed consent and omitting community involvement by censoring victims and experts who contests the validity and safety of mRNA: see: Emergency use of unproven clinical interventions outside clinical trials: ethical considerations. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

This needs a full hearing on legality and ethics:

• "WHO will also focus its science, research and innovation work on keeping ahead of the curve (e.g. through horizon scanning, foresight exercises)"; What does this mean?

• "accelerating the translation of research evidence into policy and practice." WHO is relying on experimental research as if its evidence whilst still being in the phase of pre-evidence, pre-approval and using the EUL to promote mRNA while still investigational, without informed consent of the experimental and toxic nature of mRNA.

• Ot and closing technology and access gaps to critical health products (e.g. through platforms and initiatives like ‘CTAP’1 and the mRNA technology transfer hubs established

Pg. 6

during the COVID-19 pandemic)." mRNA is not a critical health product, its a toxic biological agent and still experimental. When we say this fact we outrageously get censored by WHO and their partners Youtube, etc!

We strongly agree that enhance and expand partnerships, community engagement, and inter- sectoral collaboration at the national, regional and global levels to improve global health governance, policy coherence and the joint work of all relevant health actors from international organizations (e.g. SDG3 GAP), civil society (e.g. Civil Society Commission), youth (e.g. Youth Council), the private sector, parliamentarians, donors and philanthropic organizations and academia. Moreover, we strongly suggest ample funding and the ability to audit WHO as partnership with CSO's such as ourselves in anti-corruption, human rights, legal, ethical and scientific oversight roles who literally cannot get anywhere within the WHO non functional ethics and "independent oversight" system who will not even respond to serious charges of us being denied rights by WHO and the serious breaches we complained of.

Thank you for your understanding and we appreciate this opportunity to participate in the GPW14 steering committee consultation.

Thank you and looking forward,

Cordially,

Interest Of Justice,

Dustin Bryce,

contact@interestofjustice.org

www.interestofjustice.org

Pg. 7

If you think we are doing a great job, please support our legal fund because we are very underfunded and have many legal expenses to take on the legal battle against the WHO global health monopoly, which needs your support to ensure humanities success! Thanks for partnering with us to hold WHO Health Monopoly to account!