PART 3: If not us, then WHO! Tedros is DOOMED to fail this legal process & we will win in the end.
PART 3: If not us, then WHO! Tedros is DOOMED to fail this legal process & we will win in the end.
IOJ's EPIC LEGAL Rebuttal of WHO Director-General Tedros false statements in his April 12, 2022 Public Hearing Opening Remarks.
PART 3: WE JUST SENT A HUGE LEGAL PACKET TO THE WHO WITH A LEGAL DEADLINE OF 10 BUSINESS DAYS TO RESPOND.
This is a long explanatory post - we will post in 6 parts to explain what we just sent and exactly what it means is currently legally in process between IOJ team and the WHO:
1. Open Letter, which is what we sent the WHO on May 2, 2022.
2. Stakeholder engagement packet - Memorandum of Understanding of stakeholder engagement (very interesting to know our POWER)
3. Rebuttal to Tedros OPENING remark Public Hearings. YOU ARE HERE
4. Rebuttal to Tedros CLOSING statement Public Hearings. Read Here > (COMING SOON)
5. Memorandum of Understanding regarding Human rights and health Duties of the WHO Read Here > (COMING SOON)
6. Costa Rica’s unresponsive health system under the WHO. Read Here > (COMING SOON)
We are pretty sure only the intellectuals and freedom fighters that want to take effective sustained action will care (THESE ARE LONG - WE GET IT - EYES ARE GLAZING OVER), but for the ones who truly want a solution.. these posts should be pure GOLD!
WE HAVE LEGALLY BOXED IN TEDROS AND THE WHO SO HUMANITY CAN WIN!!
BELOW IS INTEREST OF JUSTICE’S REBUTTAL OF WHO.
THE FOLLOWING WORK IS ESSENTIAL TO LEGALLY BOX IN THE WHO IN OUR UPCOMING COURT CASES:
Based on the following, the WHO is doomed to failure.
This is the first report of the Interest of Justice CIVICS AND LAW TREATY MONITORING COMMITTEE. The purpose is to participate and engage as stakeholders and discuss the WHO Director-Generals statements at the beginning and end of the first Public Hearings April 12 and 13th 2022.
WHO: WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the Public Hearing regarding a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response – 12 April 2022
12 April 2022
Dear colleagues and friends,
Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to all of you, and thank you for joining us today for this very important discussion.
IOJ: Interest of Justice is happy to contribute.
WHO: The COVID-19 pandemic is the most severe health crisis in a century.
IOJ: The foregoing statement that “The COVID-19 pandemic is the most severe health crisis in a century” is unsubstantiated, and contradicted by our research, our experts, and even the Director-Generals own statements at the end of the hearing on April 13 2022, confessing extrajudicially and irrevocably that tools exist to limit transmission, save lives and protect health systems, making the state of emergency manifestly illegal to continue, being insufficient the sole citation of legal norms, simple facts, arithmetic data or generic transcripts of judgments or administrative resolutions, without the foregoing being accompanied albeit succinctly, an analysis aimed at justifying a particular decision.
WHO: More than 6 million lives have been lost, countless livelihoods destroyed, health systems disrupted, already-vulnerable people pushed into poverty, and the global economy plunged into its deepest recession since the Second World War.
IOJ: The Director-General concedes that countless livelihoods are destroyed, health systems disrupted, already-vulnerable people pushed into poverty, and the global economy plunged into its deepest recession since the Second World War, however, Interest of Justice finds no scientific basis for attributing these extreme results to covid-19 itself.
In our opinion the WHO’s mismanagement of applying the unnecessary, arbitrary, unscientific, disproportionate, illogical and irrational recommended measures, evidently and manifestly influenced by political interference in scientific decision-making, is the cause of these disastrous results to world health across the board.
There is also no evidence that Interest of Justice can find, even after diligent search, to show 6,000,000 people died from covid-19.
For reasons explained later, those #’s of 6 million people are overwhelmingly false statistics obtained from faulty diagnostics guidance recommended by the WHO and unsubstantiated by conclusive data.
UK just lowered their count from 160,000 to 5,115. Interest of Justice notes that it truly shocks the conscience the WHO is counting overinflated numbers from the first diagnostics they said in December 2020 is outdated PCR diagnostics for creating false positives, and yet the WHO is conspicuously still not deducting the 97-100% false statistics publicly, presumably to alarm the public.
In an April 20, 2022 report about FDA, CDC, NIH AND HHS, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) defined scientific integrity as “the use of scientific evidence and data to make policy decisions that are based on established scientific methods and processes, are not inappropriately influenced by political considerations, and are shared with the public when appropriate.” They recommend that FDA, CDC, and HHS should ensure that procedures for reporting and addressing potential political interference in scientific decision-making are documented, including adding a definition of political interference, and that for HHS the procedures are communicated to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
THIS IS AN OPEN CALL AND DEMAND FOR THE WHO TO FOLLOW SUIT AND ensure that procedures for reporting and addressing potential political interference in scientific decision-making are documented, transparent, including adding a definition of political interference, and that the procedures are communicated to the CIVICS AND LAW TREATY MONITORING COMMITTEE, among all other public agencies involved in pandemic preparedness and response as well as inform the public.
This is a big first step to restore faith in the WHO and the political integrity of evidence based medicine and science, which the WHO concedes is a public trust that is rapidly waning.
The following document shows connections between the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, WHO, GAVI and other NGOs and Big Pharma. It contains about 6500 objects including like Persons, NGOs, Companies, Documents, etc. All information is publicly available. Most reasonable people would not want the WHO in charge of global health with no ability to prevent (not merely “manage” with WHO’s discretion) these private sector and private foundations from policy creation or influence and political interference in scientific decision-making. The end users and consumers of WHO's health services should hold more seats at the table than this syndicate of health monopolies. If people cant counterbalance this Goliath of influence in health policy creation and WHO seats at the table, the situation is inequitable and oppressive, bordering on some sort of new corporate public-private totalitarianism, enabled only through the WHO catering to a scientific dictatorship controlled by the private monopolies. These private sector entities should be able to transparently suggest health policy backed by data that can be scrutinized, but the people have a participatory right to decide if its justified or beneficial, or if its motivated by profit, power or other undue influences.
The public trust will never be restored in the WHO (and the service relationship to public health is inherently invalid) without an assurance of probity in the public function. This trust shall be established by the WHO IMMEDIATELY creating and enforcing procedures for reporting and addressing potential political interference in scientific decision-making, and ensuring they are documented, transparent and readily available, with removal of stakeholders from WHO’s board and unofficial ex officio board members who hold conflicts of interest by profiting from the policies, and who may or do exert undue influence and political interference in scientific decision-making. Any member removed for undue influence and political interference in scientific decision-making shall be prosecuted under Rome Statute Article 7 and other applicable laws and reparations shall be made to any government and peoples for damages arising from the undue influence and political interference in scientific decision-making. Until this is accomplished the WHO has no moral force upon which to declare themselves the head of global health. People of every nation require the ability to assess and address conflicts of interest, undue influence and political interference in scientific decision-making and so far the WHO, CDC, FDA and HHS are not in compliance.
GAO has posted their April 20, 2022 report here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104613 and each agency has open status until the suggestions of GAO are complied with for each agency.
For our part, Interest of Justice will be posting our own report here based on the Director-Generals response to this demand: ifnotusthenwho.interestofjustice.org and the WHO has open status until the legally required demands are complied with.
WHO: And although we are now seeing a welcome decline in reported deaths, the pandemic is still far from over.
The research and information available to Interest of Justice is conclusive and overwhelming, backed by peer reviewed experts that far outnumber WHO’s potentially conflicted staff of 8000 total. In the opinion of Interest of Justice, our stakeholder members comprising hundreds of thousands of non biased experts who are not beholden to private interests or political interference in scientific decision-making, and millions of people engaged in this project directly and bi proxy, we can assure the Director-General the alleged pandemic is clearly over any alleged crisis phase.
If anything, covid-19 represents an endemic normal situation according to the unequivocal rules of science.
What is unclear is what precise science the Director-General relies upon to make this conclusory statement, how much political interference in scientific decision-making is involved in those decisions and what is the precise public participation process to examine those scientific facts he relies upon, in order to allow Tedros to substantiate his claims?
There is a duty held by the Director-General to substantiate the scientific claims. Interest of Justice invokes that duty to substantiate the death toll is accurate and not misinformation or disinformation or alarmism in response to spurious interests.
WHO: Transmission remains high, vaccine coverage remains too low in too many countries, and the relaxation of public health and social measures is creating the conditions for new variants to spread.
IOJ: The foregoing statements are completely unsubstantiated, being insufficient the sole citation of legal norms, simple facts, arithmetic data or generic transcripts of judgments or administrative resolutions, without the foregoing being accompanied albeit succinctly, an analysis aimed at justifying a particular decision.
WHO: Our focus must remain on ending the pandemic – in particular, by supporting all countries to vaccinate 70% of their population, with priority on the most at-risk groups.
IOJ: The foregoing statements that the alleged pandemic can only end with 70% vaccinated are unsubstantiated and disproved by successful countries who downgraded to endemic status like the flu, being insufficient the sole citation of legal norms, simple facts, arithmetic data or generic transcripts of judgments or administrative resolutions, without the foregoing being accompanied albeit succinctly, an analysis aimed at justifying a particular decision. Our Health Minister in Costa Rica who was conspicuously just hired by the WHO, is contradicting the WHO in court records. He first testified the herd immunity will come by the last two months of 2021 from the vaccines.. now he testifies they don’t work for transmission,“.Although they provide at least some protection against infection and transmission, the protection they confer against severe illness and death is much greater”, which is a situation which clearly holds no public interest, only a personal benefit and cant ever achieve this fallacy of herd immunity since it cant stop transmission. Interest of Justice finds this contradiction so striking that we invoke the duty of substantiation and hereby require the Director-General to place his detailed raw data sets and substantiation of certified death by or from covid-19, redacted for privacy, on the record in a public hearing to describe in succinct detail the science behind how he expects herd immunity will ever be achieved from a treatment that does not confer immunity?
WHO: But even as we work to end this pandemic, we owe it to those who have died, and those who have been affected, to learn the painful lessons the pandemic is teaching us, and make the changes we must make to make sure the world is better prepared for the next pandemic.
The fact is, COVID-19 has exposed serious gaps in the global health security architecture.
IOJ: As a civics and law institute to empower the people to learn and defend their rights we are concerned of the repetitive use of undefined and subjective words and catch phrases such as “serious gaps in the global health security architecture”. What is the definition of the global health security architecture? Why did covid or the extreme measures cause gaps? We require the Director-General to bring the public up to speed with the lingo and to substantiate all these claims and directions… a global health security architecture sounds serious and we need all information available.
WHO: The inequities that we have faced in the past two years – for therapeutics, diagnostics, and vaccines – have undermined our efforts to bring COVID-19 under control.
IOJ: Research shows the words equity, inequity, equitable are not meaning the same to all people, yet it is a key phrase in WHO and UN SDG and future plans that are likely to be incorporated in the treaty. The word equity and many other words will need to be defined and agreed upon by the people because the WHO’s definitions are far “more broad”, which in turn is very problematic for supplanting local legislative made “narrow" definitions; a situation that is cause to prohibit the WHO in any country where the laws and definitions may conflict with the WHO. Definitions are the building block of law and society safety, and frankly, we really do not understand any of the catch phrases or what the WHO is truly advocating for when they say all these undefined buzz words that only inside privileged few understand, but will presumably affect us all. For instance many say its inequitable for the WHO to interfere with the Dr. Patient relationship or to refuse to approve ivermectin off shelf treatments known to work safely and effectively, which is the WHO’s current position that limits freedom of choice.
WHO: For instance, even as some high-income countries now roll out fourth doses of vaccine for their populations, one third of the world’s population is yet to receive a single dose, including 83% of the population of Africa.
My friends, shared threats demand a shared response.
IOJ: People respond to threats in their own ways and the beauty we all share is the gift of free will and often there are many ways to achieve the same ends. A “shared response" is not an “identical response", and to give equal treatment a shared response would have to let everyone do what they felt was best after educating them in open transparent public forum.
WHO: Or as the title of the World Health Assembly decision says, “A World Together.”
IOJ: How about “A World Together is a World of Respect For Validating Different Uncensored Approaches”? Interest of Justice presumes the Director-General means one size fits all health advice to be solely dictated by the WHO, and agreed upon by funder stakeholders who profit from the advice of the WHO. If so, we reject the offer of “A World Together” for not understanding its implications. It sounds nice but every mouse trap comes with cheese, so to speak. This is where information, clear definitions & meaningful dialogue is needed to avoid being void for vagueness.
WHO: And yet the pandemic has been marked by a patchwork of different and sometimes contradictory responses, causing confusion, division, inequity and stigmatization.
IOJ: It is presumed that what the WHO is trying to say here is that there is really truly only one proper technical response to covid-19: the WHO’s “evolving" response. Irregardless that the WHO is insisting their own advice is still not yet successful after two years, they insist with an iron fist that every country and peoples should continue the same failing plan first conceived at the onset. Contradictory responses such as Florida, Denmark, India, El Salvador, etc are creating confusion only because those methods demonstrably work and people are truly confused why the WHO stigmatizes successful early treatment campaigns created independent of the WHO, and still irrationally and illogically insist on the first failing “vaccination" campaign which is not a vaccine as defined by many legislators.
WHO: Underpinning this chaotic picture is a governance that is complex and fragmented.
IOJ: The world is complex and fragmented into many different sovereignties, which by nature is both chaotic and at the same time it is this decentralization of powers that is what lends the stability of the social order, due to the protection of diversity lending a balance to the world order necessary to stave off power imbalances, a truth known inherently to all men time immemorial that the WHO has a duty to recognize.
WHO: The International Health Regulations provide a vital legal framework for responding to the global spread of disease.
IOJ: This is debatable and not settled as fact. For instance the IHR does not incorporate the entirety of Siracusa Principles or even a reference. In the Siracusa Principles the IHR shall be given “due regard”, which is undefined but could mean due process and application only after a legal challenge. As far as the IHR, the creators apparently went to great lengths to avoid adding the Siracusa Principles and limited the IHR recognized human rights to only 2 rights (dignity and freedom), despite the full range being owed ergo omines to all men by the WHO. Dignity is not defined and throughout this process we insist on a robust public discussion of dignity. The censored doctors who successfully treat covid also have a vital framework, not respected by WHO thus far, which must change. One thing is clear that is not debatable, the IHR is a legal framework, vital or not, and there are many other superior law legal frameworks that must guide and harmonize with the IHR to prevent invalidity, in particular the Siracusa Principles is the absolutely vital international human rights framework that defines the very limited conditions upon which a government can temporarily limit certain rights, which was largely not applied by the WHO or most governments during the covid-19 response directed by the WHO, which is an ommission so grave it is tantamount to a systematic denial of human rights which is a national security threat globally directed by the WHO and UN, to the detriment of peoples, nations and the WHO’s attempt to build a solid reputation of MORAL FORCE.
WHO: But the pandemic has exposed shortcomings in the application and implementation of the IHR that I believe are best addressed with a convention, agreement or other international instrument.
IOJ: This opinion that “the application and implementation of the IHR that I believe are best addressed with a convention, agreement or other international instrument” is contentious and not settled as actually being justified. There is a duty of substantiation, being insufficient the sole citation of legal norms, simple facts, arithmetic data or generic transcripts of judgments or administrative resolutions, without the foregoing being accompanied albeit succinctly, an analysis aimed at justifying a particular decision.
WHO: We have treaties and other international instruments against tobacco, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, climate change and many other threats to our shared security and well-being.
IOJ: The foregoing statements that climate change is a threat to our shared security and well-being is unsubstantiated, being insufficient the sole citation of legal norms, simple facts, arithmetic data or generic transcripts of judgments or administrative resolutions, without the foregoing being accompanied albeit succinctly, an analysis aimed at justifying a particular decision.
WHO: As you know, in December the World Health Assembly made the historic decision to negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
This agreement, I hope, will be a generational agreement. It could be a gamechanger.
IOJ: Interest of Justice appreciates the WHO”s enthusiasm, but urges temperance and far more inclusion of voices, including critics, and a much elongated process to allow time for meaningful participation of all peoples. After careful review we recommend the de-accelleration of the WHO’s treaty agenda timeline for 2024, due to the complete lack of substantiation of any necessity or actual benefit of a new instrument and lack of adequate participation and information to the public on these various contentious topics. A series of public hearings should be held to ask the public step by step how they want the global health game to change, if at all, and who should decide.
WHO: An Intergovernmental Negotiating Body – an INB – has now been established and has begun its work. Its outcome is to be submitted to the World Health Assembly in 2024.
IOJ: Interest of Justice calls for the WHO to hold bi weekly public hearing meetings hosted by critical marginalized primary stakeholders from now until the process is complete, in order to determine the constitutional elements of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness. This will also allow the WHO to meet their burden of proof to publicly substantiate all covid and other claims and science relied on in the process that may end up as policy in the treaty. In particular, the vast amount of WHO’s purported settled science based on the “totality of evidence" that is in dispute by thousands of experts who presented WHO evidence that is still not taken into account or refuted with genuine evidence and due process, requires public debate with strict scrutiny of all datasets available to both sides of the argument. Who has no MORAL FORCE without this.
WHO: It includes countries from all regions and all income levels, and is chaired by Dr Precious Matsoso of South Africa and by Dr Roland Driece of the Netherlands, with vice chairs from Brazil, Egypt, Japan and Thailand.
Under their leadership, the INB is operating based on the principles of inclusiveness, transparency, efficiency and consensus.
IOJ: Including leaders is not the same as true stakeholder engagement or citizen participation by the primary stakeholders we represent who are marginalized and may need assistance to participate.
WHO: As part of its decision in December, the World Health Assembly asked me to hold public hearings to inform the INB’s deliberations.
Public participation is crucial to that effort.
IOJ: AGREED. The problem is this participation mechanism is too rushed, not structurally sound to achieve the multifaceted robust discussion of legality, philosophy, history, technological advances, understanding of the agendas and players involved and really research to give informed consent to the WHO. This would need at least 10 years of non stop civics and law training and the WHO would be required to rebuild trust through actually engaging critics and appeasing their concerns by proving science and rational, being insufficient the sole citation of legal norms, simple facts, arithmetic data or generic transcripts of judgments or administrative resolutions, without the foregoing being accompanied albeit succinctly, an analysis aimed at justifying a particular decision.
WHO: Our Constitution says, “Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.”
IOJ: If the WHO were serious about this ideology they would practice what they preach, but Interest of Justice is unable to find any public information portal that is responsive to the needs and concerns of those they seek to serve. When our experts try to post peer reviewed scientific data that conflicts with WHOs unsubstantiated conclusory statements these experts and journalists are marginalized, persecuted, called misinformation and deplatformed under Trusted News Initiative, a WHO censorship apparatus. Or as the WHO coined the term, “global health security architecture”. The current direction of the WHO is wholly antithetical to the public messaging of their own constitution by omitting the time and robust civics and law discussions that would be required for truly Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public. Because the WHO has failed their duty to provide mechanisms for ongoing debate, education, substantiation, motivation, truly Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public, it is worth mentioning that according to the WHO’s own constitution, the WHO is acting contradictorily to the improvement of the health of the people by omitting the requirements of utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.
WHO: We are very pleased to have a wide range of participants today, from civil society, the private sector, independent experts, as well as philanthropic, academic and international organizations.
IOJ: In the observations of Interest of Justice, the public hearing was comprised of almost all WHO funders, stakeholders with seemingly preferential treatment. Other organizations we know were denied and very few critics were invited, despite our research showing far more critics exist than cheerleaders for the agendas proposed. Many people stated their opinion that it sounded like they all read a script in line with WHO’s wishes, and the public we spoke to felt it was a sham hearing that was really an ignoring. People don’t have much trust in the WHO and feel they are a captured agency of their funders. People felt there was not a wide enough range of participants and the few critics nearly all mentioned that more people should be invited and more time to announce to prepare.
WHO: We are starting with the basics. Today’s guiding question is:
What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?
I repeat: What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?
IOJ: We answered the question on the table but there is an even better question: “Is there a need or desire from the people to create a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response, and if so should the WHO be in charge when their science is in dispute and unsubstantiated?”
WHO: We look forward to hearing from you. The success of the future instrument depends on it.
IOJ: Interest of Justice looks forward to many more productive interactions such as this. Because the WHO failed to provide a place to discuss these issues with primary stakeholder affected by the policies, we will be sending the WHO our reports and asking for responses, to which we will expect meaningful participation and dialogue to hear back from you promptly at each instance, with your duty of adequate and truthful information, motivation and substantiation.
WHO: Ultimately, whatever instrument comes, this process will affect everyone. So, it’s vital that we get the widest possible range of inputs.
IOJ: This process will affect everyone according to the WHO. Despite claiming it is vital that we get the widest possible range of inputs there are only 2 public hearings planned and they are wholly insufficient. Health is a public good owed to ALL people by the WHO which includes each man to participate and collaborate. Interest of Justice will collect members and we will engage with the WHO. The more member stakeholders we collect will translate to equitably requiring a redistribution of ‘key player’ seats to represent the peoples wishes over private sector or private foundations. Otherwise, it is all empty promises of a world together with top down control, and that would negate the entire process for lack of participatory inclusion of a wide range of inputs.
WHO: Thank you all for your engagement at this historic moment.
I hope the legacy of this meeting, of the negotiating process and the pandemic itself is a healthier, safer, fairer world for generations to come – a world together.
IOJ: Thank you to the WHO and the Director-General for the opportunity to create a relationship that will result in true engagement and accountability that is currently lacking within the WHO framework.
WHO: And thank you for joining the work on this generational agreement, which we believe is a game changer. I thank you.
IOJ: The buzz word “game changer” should be explained because it sounds important. What game is changed? How? What do these game changing policies look like in real life? Of great concern to many is the WHO playing a game with exaggerated diagnostics, complicated treatment, and alarm situations in response to spurious interests, as well as censorship and surveillance under the skin as part of a purported global health security architecture.
If this is really a game changer then the WHO has a lot more work to do and a duty to lengthen the process to include all marginalized stakeholders such as our member experts being persecuted for disagreeing with WHO’s unproven science.
Well, there you have it. Tedros will FINALLY need to explain his pseudo science and rebut our presumptions.
TEDROS WILD CLAIMS OF A PANDEMIC WITH 6 MILLION DEAD THAT ONLY “VACCINES” CAN CURE WILL BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.
Tedros and his gang of cohorts will ultimately FAIL and this process will be humanities first legal step to dismantle the WHO’s stronghold in each nation.
This is an ongoing strategic legal process with precision.
We are doing this for humanity because because no one else we know of is willing to confront the WHO and actually enforce each step in court. (we won 4x in Costa Rica Supreme Court against our Health Minister - we can certainly win against Tedros and his unscientific health monopoly dictatorship!)
KEEP THE FAITH! WE ARE ON IT WITH YOUR SUPPORT.
Subscribe on Substack, and if you like what we are doing consider donating or signing up as a paid monthly member to ensure this CRITICAL work can continue until we conquer the oppressors with rule of law: https://ifnotusthenwho.interestofjustice.org/
www.interestofjustice.org
www.stopcrimesagainsthumanity.org
Thanks for reading Interest of Justice! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
✓
Our Substack and legal work is free for all to access due to the generous support of donors.
It is you, the few donors we have, that singlehandedly make our ongoing legal work against WHO, FDA and Wrongdoer States possible.
Wow! So glad someone is taking this on.....may you have good success and a growing support as the public learns more about this ....