PART 4: If not us, then WHO! We MEAN IT! Tedros is DOOMED to fail this legal process & we will win in the end.
PART 4: If not us, then WHO! We MEAN IT! Tedros is DOOMED to fail this legal process & we will win in the end.
Open Rebuttal of Tedros April 13, 2022 Public Hearing CLOSING Remarks.
PART 4: 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 as of today between IOJ team and the WHO:
1. Open Letter, which is what we sent the WHO today, 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.
4. Rebuttal to Tedros closing statement Public Hearings. YOU ARE HERE!
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, but for them.. these posts should be pure GOLD!
Below is our rebuttal to the WHO Director-General’s CLOSING remarks on April, 13, 2022:
This is the second half of 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.
Notice: All of the following presumptions made by WHO are rebutted by Interest of Justice below. The WHO’s original April 13 2022 statement is in italics.
WHO CLOSING REMARKS TITLE: The eleventh meeting of the Emergency Committee convened by the WHO Director-General under the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic took place on Monday 11 April 2022 from 12:00 to 16:30 Geneva time (CEST).
WHO: Proceedings of the meeting
Members and Advisors of the Emergency Committee were convened by videoconference.
The Director-General welcomed the Committee members and advisers. The Director-General explained that the world has tools to limit transmission, save lives, and protect health systems.
IOJ: AGREED. It is a fact not in dispute that the foregoing statement is a confession by the Director-General that Ordinary administrative procedures are available to limit transmission, save lives, and protect health systems.
As a result of the foregoing extrajudicial confession that these wonderful tools thankfully exist, Interest of Justice hereby invokes the duty of the WHO’s Director-General to immediately reconvene an early meeting with the Emergency Committee to cancel the PHEIC because The Director-General determined that the “world has tools to limit transmission, save lives, and protect health systems”.
As the WHO knows, or should know, the law does not allow further execution of the PHEIC or emergency acts when ordinary administrative procedures are available that limit transmission, save lives, and protect health systems.
WHO: He expressed hope in the current epidemiological situation, noting that the world is currently experiencing the lowest number of reported deaths in two years. However, the unpredictable behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and insufficient national responses are contributing to the continued global pandemic context. The Director-General emphasized the importance of States Parties using available medical countermeasures and public health and social measures (PHSM). He highlighted the publication of the updated Strategic Preparedness, Readiness, and Response Plan which provides a roadmap for how the world can end the COVID-19 emergency in 2022 and prepare for future events.
IOJ: Interest of Justice disputes the number of reported deaths accuracy, due to the fatally flawed diagnostics testing ruled by courts to be 97-100% false positives due to calibrating the cycle thresh hold at 35- 45ct. We are in receipt of affidavits signed by Dr. Yeadon, ex VP of Pfizer, who was part of a study of 22 peer reviewed experts called the Corman Drosden report, that discredited the WHO's diagnostics (PCR at 45ct) that was the basis of the March 11 2020 PHIEC issued. The Corman Drosden report is not in dispute by Costa Ricas health Minister, President or the WHO, despite being conspicuously posted on NIH.
If the Corman Drosden report issued by the 22 peer reviewed experts (and ruled true in numerous courts) is incorrect, the WHO has a duty to provide genuine evidence to overcome our authenticated evidence of the Corman Drosden report discrediting the confirmed cases from the PCR results signed by Dr. Yeadon, one of the peer reviewed experts involved in the study. Interest of Justice invokes the WHO’s duty of substantiation within Costa Ricas administrative deadline of 10 business days that the confirmed cases of covid are accurate counts of dangerous infectious cases of covid-19. In the event this evidence is unavailable to substantiate the accuracy of the PCR test for active cases of covid-19, Interest of Justice invokes the duty of the Director-General and Emergency Committee to declare the absolute nullity and lift the unjustified limitations to peoples rights and interests.
The WHO must dispute by the administrative deadline of 10 business days, or the report will be presumed true: https://cormandrostenreview.com/
WHO: Representatives of the Office of Legal Counsel (LEG) and the Department of Compliance, Risk Management, and Ethics (CRE) briefed the members on their roles and responsibilities. The Ethics Officer from CRE provided the members and advisers with an overview of the WHO Declaration of Interests process. The members and advisers were made aware of their individual responsibility to disclose to WHO, in a timely manner, any interests of a personal, professional, financial, intellectual or commercial nature that may give rise to a perceived or direct conflict of interest. They were additionally reminded of their duty to maintain the confidentiality of the meeting discussions and the work of the Committee. Each member who was present was surveyed. No conflicts of interest were identified.
IOJ: Interest of Justice notices that there is no known definition for “in a timely manner”, leaving the statement open to discretion that could easily be abused by anyone with a conflict. “In a timely manner” could be 75 years like the FDA unreasonably asked for to reveal Pfizer safety data relied on. There is also no assurance that any member was in the room at all when surveyed, which does not instill confidence in this process of addressing and assessing serious conflicts of interest.
The public interest requires actual transparency to see each written statement denying their conflicts of interest of each person who gets to sit at the table to exert any influence to make any policy. This statement must be able to allow for public scrutiny by disclosing all relationships with strict regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical, and health related fields including biotechnology, surveillance and AI.
WHO: The Secretariat turned the meeting over to the Chair, Professor Didier Houssin, who reviewed the objectives and agenda of the meeting.
The Secretariat presented on the current status of the COVID-19 pandemic and a vision for how to optimize the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic for 2022. The presentation focused on:
the global epidemiological context and factors that continue to drive transmission;
updates on international traffic as well as COVID-19 proof of vaccination and test result certificates;
the status of COVID-19 vaccination; and
the strategic objectives for countries to incorporate in their COVID-19 response.
The Committee discussed key issues including SARS-CoV-2 variants; use and equitable access to antivirals; vaccine protection and global shifts in the supply and demand for COVID-19 vaccines; hybrid immunity; potential future scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and challenges posed by concurrent health emergencies; and how Member States are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee also noted with concern the growing fatigue among communities worldwide in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and challenges posed by the lack of trust in scientific guidance and governments.
IOJ: Interest of Justice find it insufficient that growing fatigue and lack of trust in scientific guidance and governments is merely “noted with concern”.
Actually easing the concern is overdue. This can only be accomplished by immediately hosting as many public hearings as needed to obtain truth whenever the science is in question by scientists. Scientific debate and lengthy public scrutiny of any contentious science is the next step in the ethical reformation of the WHO, and is a duty invoked in the Interest of Justice.
The lack of trust in scientific guidance and documents issued by the WHO is clearly justified due the WHO’s lack of application of the unequivocal rules of science and reliance on their own outdated diagnostics to claim inflated numbers of deaths, and many other issues of scientific integrity that are still not addressed or resolved by the WHO.
In the lengthy research of Interest of Justice we find no substantiation to the following scientific and technical positions of the WHO:
Asymptomatic transmission exists
Because Asymptomatic transmission exists we must test everyone incessantly
The PHEIC is justified to be issued based on the cases of covid-19 confirmed by the PCR test using the Drosden created “Charite paper” which calibrates the PCR test at 45ct - which creates 100% false positives.
Please bear in mind, our Health Minister refuses to substantiate, even when ORDERED: “Why are you using cycles over 35 when Dr. Fauci says that is only detecting dead nuclei? Question: Why are you testing at over 35 cycles when WHO and Dr. Fauci and CDC says PCR testing with over 33-35 cycles is INCAPABLE of detecting a virus capable of replicating and is only false positives?”
Instead of answer why he uses the first bad test outdated by the WHO, our Health Minister repeats the WHO told them the PCR test is the "gold standard".
Daily WHO accepts Costa Ricas false statistics, using the first WHO diagnostics because the WHO doesn’t check any countries methods of diagnostics, and as a result, the WHO posts the false statistics daily on WHO's global tally. We presume most countries and the WHO report false statistics, if not all.
Even the WHO, CDC, Minesterio de Salud of Costa Rica all say the PCR test cant tell influenza... and stays positive months after no longer infectious. Many would call this gross negligence or fraud.
The WHO has a duty to substantiate why they are relying on tests that are “useless" for detecting active cases of covid, and using those fatally flawed tests to diagnose covid-19 and posting the case counts as justification to issue and reissue ad infinitum a PHIEC which in turn limit our rights? Detailed reasoning is required according to Costa Rican law. If the WHO cant or won’t answer this direct question sufficiently to explain why one scientific choice was chosen over others, then the service relationship between Costa Rica and the WHO is nullified as a matter of International, Constitutional and even Administrative law.
Interest of Justice states for the record that we conclude the WHO is creating a false alarm based on spurious interests and bad technical guidance first proposed by WHO. Knowing these facts, the WHO is intentionally continuing to execute the manifestly illegal acts.
This is problematic because the PHIEC is an act affecting everyones rights that is not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, meaning, unsupported by scientific certainty, which makes the PHIEC and subsequent limitations an absolute nullity ab initio under Siracusa Principles Article 51-57
C. "Strictly Required by the Exigencies of the Situation"
51. The severity, duration, and geographic scope of any derogation measure shall be such only as are strictly necessary to deal with the threat to the life of the nation and are proportionate to its nature and extent.
52. The competent national authorities shall be under a duty to assess individually the necessity of any derogation measure taken or proposed to deal with the specific dangers posed by the emergency.
53. A measure is not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation where ordinary measures permissible under the specific limitations clauses of the Covenant would be adequate to deal with the threat to the life of the nation.
54. The principle of strict necessity shall be applied in an objective manner. Each measure shall be directed to an actual, clear, present, or imminent danger and may not be imposed merely because of an apprehension of potential danger.
55. The national constitution and laws governing states of emergency shall provide for prompt and periodic independent review by the legislature of the necessity for derogation measures.
56. Effective remedies shall be available to persons claiming that derogation measures affecting them are not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
57. In determining whether derogation measures are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation the judgment of the national authorities cannot be accepted as conclusive.
WHO: The Committee recognized that SARS-CoV-2 is a novel respiratory pathogen that has not yet established its ecological niche. SARS-CoV-2 continues to have unpredictable viral evolution, which is compounded by its wide-spread circulation and intense transmission in humans, as well as widespread introduction of infection to a range of animal species with potential for animal reservoirs to be established. SARS-COV-2 is continuing to cause high levels of morbidity and mortality, particularly among vulnerable human populations.
IOJ: All viruses mutate and with each variant it becomes weaker and weaker and more transmissible. Interest of Justice’s research shows that ONLY the minute population of elderly and vulnerable are affected by covid-19, which is akin to the flu. In our research we find the levels of morbidity and mortality, particularly among vulnerable human populations is identical to flu or lower.
WHO: In this context, the Committee raised concerns that the inappropriate use of antivirals may lead to the emergence of drug-resistant variants.
IOJ: The inappropriate use of the gene [non]”vaccines” are leading to the emergence of “vaccine” resistant variants, exacerbating and extending the situation rather than curtail it.
WHO: In addition, Committee members acknowledged national, regional, and global capacities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic context, but noted with concern that some States Parties have relaxed PHSM and reduced testing, impacting thus the global ability to monitor evolution of the virus.
IOJ: Interest of Justice finds no necessity for a global ability to monitor evolution of the virus, because national health care systems are perfectly capable of monitoring covid, which is like the endemic flu.
WHO: The Committee also noted with concern the inconsistency of global COVID-19 requirements for international travel and the negative impact that inappropriate measures may have on all forms of international travel.
IOJ: AGREED
WHO: In this context, the Committee noted that offering vaccination to high-risk groups of international travelers on arrival could be considered a means to mitigate the risk of severe disease or death due to COVID-19 among these individuals.
IOJ: This claim is unsubstantiated and in dispute by our members, many of whom are top scientific experts the WHO is currently censoring for purportedly spreading misinformation. These experts have data they wish to impart, a right to health and duty.
WHO is currently in breach of duty to give these marginalized stakeholders due process and uphold their right to dignity and association. Any responsive health agency would eagerly receive new data from top experts. WHO really has no excuse for refusing to receive, examine and consider all new safety signals and data of failing diagnostics, etc.
WHO: The Committee stressed the importance of maintaining PHSM to protect vulnerable populations, and maintaining the capacity to scale up PHSM if the epidemiological situation changes. States Parties are advised to regularly adjust their response strategies by monitoring their epidemiological situation (including through use of rapid tests), assessing their health system capacity, and considering the adherence to and attributable impact of individual and combined PHSM.
IOJ: Interest of Justice reminds the WHO that PCR and antigen tests are not proper diagnostics tests to accurately monitor the epidemiological situation.
WHO: In addition, the Committee reinforced the continued need for international cooperation and coordination for surveillance, as well as for robust and timely reporting to global systems (such as the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System) to inform national, regional, and global response efforts. Surveillance activities require coordination between the human and animal sectors and more global attention on the detection of animal infections and possible reservoirs among domestic and wild animals. Timely and systematic monitoring and data sharing on SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission and evolution in humans and animals will assist global understanding of the virus epidemiology and ecology, the emergence of new variants, their timely identification, and assessment of their public health risks. Continued provision of technical support and guidance from all three levels of the WHO can enable States Parties’ adjustment of COVID-19 surveillance and its integration into respiratory pathogen surveillance systems.
IOJ: The claim is unsubstantiated that there is any necessity or benefit for the continued provision of timely and systematic monitoring and data sharing with technical support and guidance from all three levels of the WHO, which will enable States Parties’ adjustment of COVID-19 surveillance and its integration into respiratory pathogen surveillance systems.
WHO: The Committee acknowledged that COVID-19 vaccination is a key tool to reduce morbidity and mortality and reinforced the importance of vaccination (primary series and booster doses, including through heterologous vaccine schedules).
IOJ: The foregoing claim is unsubstantiated and disputed by experts the WHO censors.
WHO: The Committee expressed appreciation for WHO and partners’ work to enhance global vaccine supply and distribution.
IOJ: Public sector and Private foundation partners presumably monopolize the key player seats at the table to create ineffective and unnecessary vaccine policies which they profit from, some of which are in legal and ethical dispute, which is a conflict of interest and structural defect, requiring transparency.
WHO: Committee members highlighted the challenges posed by limited vaccination protection, particularly in low-income countries, as well as by waning population-level immunity.
IOJ: Interest of Justice's research shows waning population-level immunity is due to waning individual immunity which is a known signifiant adverse reaction of the genetic injections called vaccine enhanced disease (VAID) or antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) and is deadly like AIDS. The injections are apparently irreversibly destroying the life sustaining immune systems, which has the opposite effect, destroying and not protecting health and life. It is presumed WHO and the Committee members know these significant dangers and the duty to inform the public, as well as their duty to immediately cancel the exception to sanitary registration and approval in the WHO ‘recommended vaccine' list.
WHO: As outlined in the SAGE roadmap, vaccination should be prioritized for high-risk groups such as health workers, older adults, and immune-compromised populations, refugees, and migrants.
IOJ: Moderna's CEO says immune-compromised populations should never take the mRNA injections, and our experts agree, therefore the foregoing statement appears reckless and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, it is unclear why health workers, refugees, and migrants would benefit from the ineffective [non]vaccines that are proving to cause high mortality rates
WHO: To enhance vaccine uptake, States Parties are encouraged to address national and sub-national barriers for vaccine deployment and to ensure COVID-19 response measures align with and strengthen immunization activities and primary health services.
IOJ: The necessity and benefit of vaccine uptake is in dispute. There is no substantiation by the WHO of any necessity to ensure COVID-19 response measures align with and strengthen immunization activities. Our experts disagree and their contradictory opinion and facts are not considered by the WHO.
WHO: In addition, the Committee noted the continued importance of WHO’s provision of guidance, training, and tools to support States Parties’ recovery planning process from the COVID-19 pandemic and future respiratory pathogen pandemic preparedness planning.
IOJ: The Charite Protocol first WHO diagnostics for covid-19 is still in use in Costa Rica which courts have ruled creates 97-100% false positives.
It is worth mentioning that the WHO’s covid guidance comes with the following legal disclaimer, which is quite inappropriate in a public health setting:
“2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019‐nCoV): STRATEGIC PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN - However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.”
WHO: The Committee unanimously agreed that the COVID-19 pandemic still constitutes an extraordinary event that continues to adversely affect the health of populations around the world, poses an ongoing risk of international spread and interference with international traffic, and requires a coordinated international response.
IOJ: Interest of Justice finds this shocking and very concerning to the integrity of the WHO’s scientific process that the Committee unanimously agreed that the COVID-19 pandemic still constitutes an extraordinary event that continues to adversely affect the health of populations around the world, poses an ongoing risk of international spread and interference with international traffic, and requires a coordinated international response, despite the irrevocable fact the Director-General has clearly explained that the “world has tools to limit transmission, save lives, and protect health systems”.
WHO: The Committee stressed the importance for States Parties to prepare for future scenarios with the assistance of WHO and to continue robust use of the essential tools (e.g. vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics).
IOJ: Interest of Justice would like to point out the obvious that the foregoing statement is the second extrajudicial confession, this time from the Committee, reiterating the fact that therapeutics exist to limit transmission, save lives and protect health systems, making the state of emergency absolutely null and manifestly illegal to continue.
WHO: The Committee concurred that the COVID-19 pandemic remains a PHEIC and offered its advice to the Director-General.
IOJ: The foregoing claim of PHEIC is unsubstantiated, and contradicted by the Director-Generals own statements 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: The Director-General determined that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to constitute a PHEIC.
IOJ: The foregoing claim of PHEIC is unsubstantiated, and contradicted by the Director-Generals own statements that tools exist to limit transmission, save lives and protect health systems, making the state of emergency illogical and irrational, as well as manifestly illegal to continue to execute, 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: He accepted the advice of the Committee and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.
IOJ: It is unclear why the foregoing advice was recommended or accepted by the Director-General, considering the Temporary Recommendations under the IHR are not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation because he has determined there are tools of ordinary treatments available.
The Emergency Committee will be reconvened within three months or earlier, at the discretion of the Director-General. The Director-General thanked the Committee for its work.
In the opinion of Interest of Justice, a primary stakeholder, there is an IMMEDIATE duty of annulment of the absolutely null PHEIC, issued based on false statistics, exaggerated diagnosis, and an alarm situation based on spurious interests. The Director Generals duty of substantiation, probity and motivation is hereby invoked, which affects the motive, content and purpose of the PHEIC, and the validity, making it absolutely null, 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: Temporary Recommendations to States Parties
The Committee identified the following actions as critical for all countries:
NEW: Strengthen national response to the COVID-19 pandemic by updating national preparedness and response plans in line with the priorities and potential scenarios outlined in the 2022 WHO Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP). States Parties should conduct assessments (e.g. intra action and after action reviews) to inform current and future response and preparedness efforts. WHO Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP)
MODIFIED: Achieve national COVID-19 vaccination targets in line with global WHO recommendations of at least 70% of all countries’ populations vaccinated by the start of July 2022. States Parties are requested to support global equitable access to vaccines and to prioritize vaccination of high-risk populations through a primary series and booster schedule. These populations include health workers, older people, people with underlying conditions, immune-compromised, refugees, migrants, people living in fragile settings, and individuals with insufficient access to treatment. States Parties should continually assess their vaccine coverage and epidemiological situation in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and modify their national responses accordingly. WHO SAGE Prioritization Roadmap
MODIFIED: Continue to use evidence-informed and risk-based PHSM. State Parties should be prepared to scale up PHSM rapidly in response to changes in the virus and the population immunity, if COVID-19 hospitalizations, intensive care admissions, and fatalities increase and compromise the health system’s capacity. States Parties are advised to continue the risk-based use of basic PHSM (e.g. wearing masks, staying home when sick, increased hand washing, and improving ventilation of indoor spaces, even in periods of low circulation of SARS-CoV-2). Considerations for implementing and adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19
IOJ: Interest Of Justice has researched extensively and finds no evidence masks work, and we have found extensive evidence of physical and psychological harm from mask wearing, especially for children, anxious, COPD and other groups using them long term, 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: Considerations for implementing and adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19.pdf
MODIFIED: Take a risk-based approach to mass gathering events by evaluating, mitigating, and communicating risks. Recognizing that there are different drivers and risk tolerance for mass gatherings, it is critical to consider the epidemiological context (including the prevalence of variants of concern and the intensity of transmission), surveillance, contact tracing and testing capacity, as well as adherence to PHSM when conducting this risk assessment and planning events, in line with WHO guidance. Key planning recommendations for mass gatherings in the context of COVID-19
MODIFIED: Adjust COVID-19 surveillance to focus on the burden and impact and prepare for sustainable integration with other surveillance systems. States Parties should collect and publicly share indicators to monitor the burden of COVID-19 (e.g. new hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care units, and deaths). States Parties should integrate respiratory disease surveillance by leveraging and enhancing the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS). States Parties should be encouraged to 1) maintain representative testing strategies; 2) focus on early warning and trend monitoring, such as use of wastewater surveillance; 3) monitor severity in vulnerable groups; and 4) enhance genomic surveillance to detect potential new variants and monitor the evolution of SARS-COV-2. Guidance for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants; WHO global genomic surveillance strategy for pathogens with pandemic and epidemic potential 2022–2032
MODIFIED: Ensure availability of essential health, social, and education services. States Parties should enhance access to health, including through the restoration of health services at all levels and strengthening of social systems to cope with the impacts of the pandemic, especially on children and young adults.
Within this context, States Parties should maintain educational services by keeping schools fully open with in-person learning. In addition, essential health services, including COVID-19 vaccination, should be provided to migrants and other vulnerable populations as a priority. Building health systems resilience for universal health coverage and health security during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: WHO position paper; The State of the Global Education Crisis | UNICEF
MODIFIED: Lift international traffic bans and continue to adjust travel measures, based on risk assessments. The failure of travel bans introduced after the detection and reporting of Omicron variant to limit international spread of Omicron demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such measures over time. The implementation of travel measures (such as vaccination, screening, including via testing, isolation/quarantine of travelers) should be based on risk assessments and should avoid placing the financial burden on international travelers, in accordance with Article 40 of the IHR. WHO advice for international traffic in relation to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant
MODIFIED: Do NOT require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel as the only pathway or condition permitting international travel. States Parties should consider a risk-based approach to the facilitation of international travel. Interim position paper: considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for international travelers; Policy considerations for implementing a risk-based approach to international travel in the context of COVID-19
MODIFIED: Address risk communications and community engagement challenges, proactively counter misinformation and disinformation, and include communities in decision making. To re-build trust and address pandemic fatigue, States Parties should explain clearly and transparently changes to their response strategy. WHO risk communications resources
IOJ: Interest of Justice finds the foregoing statement “Address risk communications and community engagement challenges, proactively counter misinformation and disinformation, and include communities in decision making.” very confusing and legally invalid. On one hand the WHO says to include communities in decision making, but contrarily, the WHO’s Trusted News Initiative is persecuting, censoring and de-platforming entire communities of scientists who both far outnumber WHO's advisors and who’s alleged “misinformation" is more and more turning out to be true but arbitrarily and capriciously called misinformation by WHO, in violation of human rights and right to health.
[1] HR Committee, General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011; at para. 25.
“For the purposes of paragraph 3, a norm, to be characterized as a “law”, must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly and it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution. Laws must provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not.”
The use of the term “in conformity with the law” in Article 21 of the ICCPR, should not be interpreted to imply any lower standard of legality for limitations on the right of peaceful assembly than other limitations within the ICCPR. It should be the same standard that applies to interpreting the language of “provided by law” within Article 19 of the ICCPR, as elaborated in the Committee’s General Comment No. 34:[1]
The WHO and States parties both have a duty to prove their science and allow robust discussion and collaboration with marginalized censored experts, not just “explain clearly and transparently changes to their response strategy”, which may be in dispute and unsupported by science to the point of absolute nullity.
WHO:
MODIFIED: Support timely uptake of WHO recommended therapeutics. Local production and technology transfer should be encouraged and supported as increased production capacity can contribute to global equitable access to therapeutics. States Parties should provide access to COVID-19 treatments for vulnerable populations, particularly immunosuppressed people as this can also reduce the likelihood of new variants’ emergence. Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline
IOJ: In addition to the very limited selection of WHO recommended therapeutics, our research shows there are numerous other therapeutics validated by concluded peer reviewed studies that could easily expand upon the list of recommended therapeutics to include essential medicines such as Ivermectin which can obliterate covid-19 and can prevent the vulnerable from getting covid-19.
Ivermectin is an ordinary administrative treatment in use in El Salvador, Japan, India, etc and used with great success. The fact WHO claims “Ivermectin studies are not concluded" as cause to deny a nobel prize winning safe essential medicine with many concluded studies, whilst recommending experimental genetic therapy who’s studies will not conclude until 2023 is illogical and irrational, dramatically complicating the treatment, leading many to conclude conflicts of interest are the driving motivation for the WHO’s unsubstantiated decisions that deny the human right to essential off shelf medicines whilst fanatically promoting the failing vaccine as an infallible cure.
WHO:
Overview
MODIFIED: Conduct epidemiological investigations of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the human-animal interface and targeted surveillance on potential animal hosts and reservoirs. Investigations at the human animal interface should use a One Health approach and involve all relevant stakeholders, including national veterinary services, wildlife authorities, public health services, and the environment sector. To faciliate international transparency, and in line with international reporting obligations, findings from joint investigations should be reported publicly. Statement from the Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Evolution in Animals
*end*
INTEREST OF JUSTICE CONCLUSIONS:
IOJ to the WHO: After diligent search Interest of Justice was unable to find any validity to the Emergency Committee and Director-Generals conclusion that covid-19 is a PHEIC, which is extremely problematic.
WHO’s interpretations of facts and the limits of law are not in harmony with the international human rights norms that the WHO claims it wants to protect which will require strict scrutiny and oversight to resolve now if the WHO wants leadership role in global health into the future.
Accountability is an interactive process that requires that those held accountable explain their decisions and actions, and that defines the external stakeholders’ right and ability to inquire about those actions (Fox, 2014).
The future of health is freedom of choice including natural, traditional and complimentary healing practices and WHO has a duty to equally promote all options, including off shelf options of approved medicines and to not interfere in the traditional Dr.- Patient relationship.
Health is not a franchise, it’s a delicate art that requires human intuition. The WHO is acting contrary to health when recommending a single one size fits all health strategy decided by 'key players', and not having input of those affected by the policies.
Equality and non-discrimination establishes that all persons must be treated be treated equally, without discrimination based on sex, gender, ethnicity, age sex, gender, ethnicity, age, age, language, religion, national or social origin, sexual orientation and gender sexual orientation and gender identity. The principle of equality and non-discrimination establishes that in order to generate equality they must also differences must also be respected, and where there are differences, the actions of the State must address health health situations should be addressed accordingly, in order to to generate equality.
As relevant stakeholders, Interest of Justice requires a seat at the table and access to information as we request in order to perform our mission of CIVICS AND LAW MONITORING COMMITTEE.
Relevant stakeholders in this context includes non-State actors with a demonstrable interest in pandemic preparedness and responses, such as: international organizations; civil society organizations; private sector organizations; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical and public policy institutions; academic institutions; and other such entities that have relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise related to pandemic preparedness and response to share. Applicable terms will address, inter alia, requirements of timing, germaneness, civility and transparency.
It is presumed the WHO will accommodate the mission of Interest of Justice and its members who will be acting in a participatory role as CIVICS AND LAW MONITORING COMMITTEE.
Governments are responsible for encouraging citizens and stakeholder participation by creating an enabling environment and establishing appropriate legal, policy and institutional frameworks to help remove obstacles for the participation of everyone, and especially of those who are frequently excluded, for example youth, women or marginalized groups of society (OECD, 2017b).
Interest of Justice represents a disadvantaged or vulnerable class of primary stakeholders who invoke ‘key player’ status in policy making. The marginalized stakeholders we represent are more likely to be adversely affected by the project impacts and/or more limited than others in their ability to take advantage of a project’s benefits and we require specific measures and/ or assistance to participate and oversee human rights obligations.
Disadvantaged or vulnerable refers to those who may be more likely to be adversely affected by the project impacts and/or more limited than others in their ability to take advantage of a project’s benefits. Such an individual/group is also more likely to be excluded from/unable to participate fully in the mainstream consultation process and as such may require specific measures and/ or assistance to do so. World Bank
There are many benefits the WHO will obtain from having a truly independent CIVICS AND LAW MONITORING COMMITTEE. Interest of Justice extends a warm fraternal greeting and appreciation to the WHO for choosing our organization as relevant stakeholders with relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise related to pandemic preparedness and response to share.
With the WHO and the CIVICS AND LAW MONITORING COMMITTEE acting together with mutual respect and a shared mission of transparency and accountability, this supportive relationship can indeed create one health for all.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health extended participation under the right to health, recognizing that “[t]he right to health requires that health policies, programmes and projects are participatory. The active and informed participation of all stakeholders can broaden consensus and a sense of ‘ownership’, promote collaboration and increase the chances of success” (Hunt & Bueno de Mesquita 2006). WHO has drawn from this rights-based consensus to find that “[t]he principle of participation and inclusion means that people are entitled to participate in decisions that directly affect them, such as the design, implementation and monitoring of health interventions. Participation should be active, free and meaningful” (WHO, 2011).
Interest of Justice invokes their entitlement to participate in decisions that directly affect our organization and members, such as the design, implementation and monitoring of health interventions. Participation should be active, free and meaningful.
Notice: All disputed presumptions herein must be rebutted under oath with genuine evidence in 10 business days according to Costa Rican law, otherwise they will be considered as fact. We presume the WHO and each of you men this claim is addressed to agrees with every word we say because all our claims are backed by facts, just laws and WHO’s own ideas about stakeholder engagement and the dangers of private sector in policy making that we agree with and wish to assist with.
Costa Rica Administrative law Article 415. irrebuttable presumption .- should be considered as assumptions absolute, those by virtue of which the law nullifies certain acts, or agrees a peremptory exception, if in these hypotheses the law has not expressly reserved the test otherwise. However, absolute as it is a legal presumption, it does not preclude the effectiveness of the confession of the contrary fact, provided that they are presumptions exclusively established by a private interest, and that the confession is admissible in the matter of containment.
This report is made by and for the people In the Interest of Justice.
Interest of Justice will be researching the content of each of the above links provided by WHO and other WHO documents, issuing a series of upcoming reports for the Interest of Justice 2022-2030 "CIVICS AND LAW TREATY MONITORING COMMITTEE PROJECT", entitled, "If not us, then WHO!" Learn more and sign up here: https://ifnotusthenwho.interestofjustice.org/
Dustin Bryce,
Head of Public Relations, Interest of Justice, contact@interestofjustice.org
Global Health civil society participatory research project: "If not US, then WHO!"
*end of what we sent*
Above is what we sent May 2, 2022 to tell the WHO to stop being alarmists and end their ridiculous PHEIC, unsupported by science to the point of absolute nullity.
Lets see how this all plays out!
Remember to SHARE THIS INFORMATION FAR AND WIDE and join us as a stakeholder or sponsor to hold the WHO to account! 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.
