Italy told the General Assembly it doesn’t support the WHO Pandemic Agreement or the 2024 IHR amendments, and Health Policy Watch reports its reason is that the WHO is overstepping its mandate. The declaration now goes to a December vote.
To be clear, the PABS annex that unlocks the treaty isn’t due until the World Health Assembly in May 2027.
Before the December and May votes, YOU and IoJ will get together for MASSIVE action. For now, let’s discuss what happened at the UN yesterday.
On Friday, September 25, governments met at the UN General Assembly in New York to work together on the next pandemic, according to the World Health Organization. WHO’s press release for the day ran under the headline “World leaders renew commitment to protect the world from future pandemics.”
WHO said the meeting would bring heads of state and government together “to reinforce political commitment to fighting future pandemics.”
More than 100 speakers took the floor. The plan was to pass a political declaration by consensus, call for the “timely completion“ of the WHO’s pathogen-sharing annex, and commit more money to pandemic preparedness.
Consensus at the UN doesn’t mean everyone agrees. The UN’s own library defines it as “the absence of objection rather than a particular majority.” There’s no vote at all — the President asks whether the Assembly wants to adopt the text, and if nobody objects, it’s declared “so decided.” Countries can even keep their reservations and still let it pass.
Silence = consent… and 3 countries spoke up! Bam!
Objections from the United States, the European Union and Italy blocked consensus
Only Italy did it for the right reasons, though — the EU’s worry was protecting drug patents, not your freedom.
The declaration didn’t clear that bar of “consensus.” Thank goodness!
WHO’s release says only that it “is expected to be forwarded to the United Nations General Assembly for further consideration.” Health Policy Watch reports that objections from the United States, the European Union and Italy blocked consensus and pushed the text to a General Assembly vote, likely just before the session closes in DECEMBER.
Italy went further than the others. Its representative told the Assembly that Italy
“did not support the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, nor the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations.”
According to Health Policy Watch, Italy’s reason is that both stretch the WHO beyond its constitutional mandate and cut into national sovereignty.
That’s the argument IoJ has made since it sued in 2024 to invalidate the IHR amendments — the WHO is acting ULTRA VIRES, which means beyond the powers its own members ever gave it. Now a G7 government has said it at the United Nations.
A UN political declaration binds nobody, but two instruments do.
Under the International Health Regulations, Article 5 requires every member state to build and keep the capacity to “detect, assess, notify and report events,” and Article 6 gives it 24 hours to notify Geneva.
The Pandemic Agreement, adopted in 2025, can’t open for signature until the pathogen-sharing annex, called PABS, is finished, and WHO says that annex has to be adopted at the World Health Assembly in MAY 2027.
Why the words we use matter
Many IoJ readers also read Meryl Nass, and we share her goal of keeping the WHO from gaining more power. She watched Friday’s meeting on the livestream and wrote afterward that it was “one of the most boring days of my life.” We’re raising one point about her record because clarity matters in this fight.
On February 8, 2005, Nass submitted written testimony for the record of a Senate subcommittee hearing on biodefense. She wrote that
“the number and variety of potential pathogens is infinite, so we cannot predict or identify all the pathogens that might be used as weapons,”
and that “we will never be able to purchase adequate protection from bioterrorism, no matter how many resources we expend.”
Her recommendations included more “international cooperation,” with “inspections of biological research and manufacturing facilities” under the bioweapons treaty.
Her call was about the bioweapons treaty, but “international cooperation” is the same language governments were using at the UN on Friday.
Three and a half months after Nass submitted that testimony — which amounts to saying nobody is ever safe — the World Health Assembly adopted the revised IHR on May 23, 2005, in resolution WHA58.3, binding every member state to watch its own population for disease threats and report them to Geneva.
The WHO started that rewrite in 1995, and her statement went to the US Senate and throughout her career as a consultant on the prevention, investigation, and mitigation of chemical/biological warfare and pandemics for international and federal agencies, including the World Bank, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the U.S. Director of National Intelligence's Summer Hard Problem Program.
To be clear and very skeptical, the idea that threats are infinite and can’t be bought off is the same reasoning the IHR is built on, because a threat that never ends gives governments a reason to keep watching us all forever and ever and ever and EVER, with NO end in sight.
“The time is now to successfully complete the PABS,” WHO DG urged yesterday, warning that any further delays would have consequences when the next outbreak occurs. “No one is safe until everyone is safe ,” he added, echoing the phrase that became famous during the pandemic.
IoJ believes the way to stop the WHO is a court ruling that it’s acting beyond its lawful powers, and that takes lawsuits. A couple of years back, Nass declined to back IoJ’s plan for a real legal challenge against the WHO. We respect that people choose different strategies, and we think readers deserve to see them side by side.
IoJ will resume work on our Sue the WHO project shortly, because it’s CRITICAL the lawsuits against the WHO continue. Sign up to the Sue the WHO Substack now, and please be patient. IoJ went through a restructuring and is neck deep in a huge mRNA lawsuit against FDA, HHS and DoD, so things will start back up in a big way soon on the other half of the mission to stop the WHO overreaches. One step at a time — Just Us will prevail!
What comes next
December’s vote is on a declaration, but the real decision comes in MAY 2027, when the World Health Assembly decides whether to adopt PABS and unlock the treaty for signature. Italy has said out loud what IoJ has been filing for years, and the question is whether your government will say it too.
IoJ will come back to this before both votes, in December 2026 and May 2027, with a way for you to put your name on legal protests. Our legal and diplomatic work in Costa Rica helped make them the first country to break from the WHO’s consensus at the 2024 World Health Assembly, and it’s proof we have way more power over these negotiations than most people think.
Find out who speaks for your country at the UN and in Geneva, and make sure they know you’re watching — their job is to answer to you.
Stay SAFE everyone - until next time!
Lady Xylie - IoJ
Related reading
BOMBSHELL! COSTA RICA BOLDLY REJECTS WHO PANDEMIC TREATY CONSENSUS WHA77 — the 2024 Assembly where Costa Rica broke from the consensus - THIS WIN IS SO LEGENDARY and due to IoJ NOT SLEEPING & CONTACTING THE DELEGATES WITH LEGAL DEMANDS before and during WHA
RIGHT NOW IN GENEVA — THE WHO IS LOCKING PABS. THE PETITION IS UP. SIGN IT BEFORE YOU FINISH READING. — the April PABS petition the December and May pushes build on
United States Rejects IHR Amendments At Last Minute — the last time a government refused the amendments Italy just rejected
The sad truth is the WHO and the other Globalist organisations were not created for the health and betterment of society.
The actors in the WHO have clear origins in Eugenics.
Medicine was also corrupted from Homeopathic origins.
Joe Rogan often states that most medicines began from a Natural plant/ Herb origin until synthetic versions were manufactured, it’s no secret.
I do not accept that this WHO? is the best way to deal with Health. A core of people in the UN (which also needs total examination, to act as co-ordinators in Health matters and let Countries deal with Health for many valid reasons screams out to be considered rather than this buddy WHO system who seem to need never ending money but there is no trasnparency, And Billy Gates and like can have an inordinate amount of say and control and has in this WHO!
Quality people in responsible positions within their native Country re Health is the answer,
This corporatisation and doubling up of roles is not needed.
I noted that there weree World Trade agreements that kicked in during the PLanScamDemic and Countries can accept medicines automatically if they have for example a seal of approVAL BY FOR E.G. The European Union or USA etc, and Countries who signed up to the WTO do not have to use their own Countries Labs to test the product coming in from overseas. WHY then does a Country waste money on having these Laboratories and Customs etc., what a cheap opt.out of responsibility, The Public of a Country thinking that the usual high standards that their COuntry had are still being applied, especially with a new product.
This automatic impramatur of this organisation is not on!