Sign Now - 50 Persistent Risks In WHO Proposed Pandemic Agreement Set To Finalize Next Month - Good Cause To ACT NOW
There are only 3 weeks left until World Health Assembly where globalists plot world domination through One Health shenanigans and plan to sign the pandemic treaty and usher in null IHR Amendments
Treaty for Tyranny Incoming FAST!
Our descendants yet unborn will be either the grateful beneficiaries or the tragic casualties of the resolve we summon in humanity's hour of testing. - IoJ
50 Persistent Threats in the WHO Pandemic Treaty Newest Draft
Despite minor concessions in recent drafts, the WHO Pandemic Treaty continues to present grave threats to national sovereign decision making, individual freedom, and democratic governance.
Below are 50 critical concerns that remain unaddressed across all draft versions, including the April 12, 2025 draft:
Download the PDF:
Sovereignty and Governance Threats
Perpetual Emergency Powers: Authority "at all times" creates a permanent state of exception outside democratic control.
Ambiguous Definitions: Critical terms like "pandemic" remain deliberately vague, enabling arbitrary declarations of emergency.
Parliamentary Bypass: Creates mechanisms to implement binding directives without legislative approval in member states.
Mandatory Governmental Restructuring: "Whole-of-government" approach requires constitutional reorganization that violates separation of powers.
Insufficient Withdrawal Provisions: One-year waiting period (improved from three years but still inadequate) prevents rapid exit when national interests are threatened.
European Union Special Status: Allows a non-WHO member entity to participate, creating unprecedented delegation of treaty authority.
Global Health Architecture Dominance: Establishes WHO as the "directing and coordinating authority" with supremacy over all other health institutions.
Democracy Deficit: Treaty negotiated with minimal public input and systematic exclusion of critical stakeholders.
Federalism Undermining: Centralizes authority in ways that override constitutional arrangements where health powers are distributed across multiple levels of government.
No Effective Judicial Review: Lacks accessible mechanisms for challenging ultra vires actions or rights violations committed under treaty authority.
Medical Ethics and Freedom Concerns
Nuremberg Code Omission: Fails to explicitly incorporate informed consent protections established after World War II medical atrocities.
Siracusa Principles Exclusion: Omits established safeguards requiring emergency measures to be necessary, proportionate, and time-limited.
Regulatory "Harmonization": Enables downward standardization that could bypass more stringent national safety requirements.
Fast-Track Approvals: Facilitates rushed authorization of experimental countermeasures without enhanced safety monitoring.
Liability Shields: Creates pathways for immunity protections that leave individuals without recourse for injuries from mandated interventions.
Natural Immunity Disregarded: Systematically privileges pharmaceutical interventions over recognition of naturally-acquired immunity.
Genetic Technology Misclassification: Enables regulatory reclassification of mRNA and gene technologies to circumvent appropriate scrutiny.
Religious and Philosophical Exemption Erosion: Contains no protections for conscientious objections to medical interventions.
Digital Health Certification: Enables infrastructure for restricting rights based on compliance with recommended interventions.
Children's Protection Deficiencies: Lacks safeguards against experimental interventions on minors or provisions preserving parental authority.
Scientific Integrity Issues
"Misinformation" Control Without Viewpoint Protection: Enables censorship of legitimate scientific debate and dissenting expert opinions.
Centralized Research Direction: Establishes mechanisms for controlling global research priorities that threaten scientific diversity.
Pharmaceutical Intervention Bias: Prioritizes patentable interventions over non-pharmaceutical approaches and natural immunity.
Conflict of Interest Vulnerabilities: Lacks robust safeguards against industry influence on public health policy.
Whistleblower Protection Absence: Fails to protect scientists who raise concerns about safety or efficacy of recommended interventions.
Data Transparency Deficits: Lacks requirements for full disclosure of clinical trial data for emergency countermeasures.
Independent Verification Omission: Allows reliance on manufacturer-provided data without independent verification requirements.
Outcome Measurement Absence: Establishes no objective criteria for evaluating success or failure of WHO-directed measures.
Methodological Pluralism Undermined: Standardization approach threatens benefits of diverse, competing models of pandemic response.
Traditional Knowledge Marginalization: Privileges pharmaceutical approaches over traditional medicine with established safety records.
Property Rights and Resource Control
Intellectual Property Appropriation: Mandatory technology sharing threatens legitimate patent rights without adequate compensation.
Pathogen Sovereignty Violations: Access system conflicts with national sovereignty over biological resources established in the Nagoya Protocol.
Indigenous Knowledge Exploitation: Inadequate protections for traditional knowledge create biopiracy risks.
R&D Disincentives: Compulsory sharing requirements threaten investment in crucial medical innovation.
Digital Infrastructure Mandates: Creates substantial unfunded technology requirements for developing nations.
Inequitable Benefit Distribution: Structure disproportionately benefits wealthy nations and pharmaceutical companies despite equity language.
Genetic Data Appropriation: Enables collection and use of sensitive genetic information without adequate consent or usage limitations.
Supply Chain Nationalization: Provisions enabling government control of medical supply chains threaten market mechanisms ensuring efficient distribution.
Private Sector Commandeering: Enables requisitioning of private manufacturing capacity without clear compensation frameworks.
Benefit-Sharing Ambiguities: Vague language on "equitable" sharing creates uncertainty about obligations and entitlements.
Implementation and Biosecurity Concerns
Inadequate Biosafety Protocols: Pathogen sharing system lacks sufficient safety requirements for dangerous materials.
Gain-of-Function Research Oversight Deficit: No meaningful limitations on potentially dangerous pathogen manipulation.
Laboratory Containment Standards Deficiency: Fails to strengthen protections against lab leaks despite recognized pandemic risks.
Disproportionate Financial Burdens: Creates substantial compliance costs without corresponding support, particularly for developing nations.
One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Imposes standardized measures despite vast differences in national health systems, resources, and cultural contexts.
Surveillance Without Privacy Safeguards: Promotes expanded health monitoring without proportionate data protection.
Conflicts With Other International Obligations: Creates potential contradictions with WTO agreements, human rights treaties, and biodiversity protections.
Technical Assistance Insufficiency: Mandates complex systems without adequate capacity-building for resource-limited countries.
Strategic Ambiguity in Critical Provisions: Defers crucial details to future implementation mechanisms controlled by unaccountable bureaucrats.
International Humanitarian Law Confusion: References to laws of armed conflict create inappropriate legal framework for public health measures that could enable rights derogations.
Conclusion
These 50 threats persist across all versions of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, including the newest April 12, 2025 draft. The cosmetic changes between drafts—that some insane CHAOS freedom fighters are celebrating as a “win”, such as reducing the withdrawal period from three years to one year or increasing the ratification threshold from 30-40 to 60 nations—fail to address these fundamental concerns.
The treaty remains, at its core, an unprecedented transfer or re-delegation of sovereign decision making in health policy from democratically accountable governments to an unaccountable international bureaucracy. Once established, this system of centralized control will prove exceedingly difficult to dismantle.
Nations concerned with preserving their sovereignty, protecting citizens' rights, and maintaining democratic control of public health must oppose this treaty in its entirety—not be placated by minor adjustments that leave the dangerous architecture intact.
The problem is the nations appear to be mostly united in wanting to usher this in.
Summary
The WHO's proposed Pandemic Agreement poses grave risks to democratic sovereignty, fundamental rights, and evidence-based public health policy that substantially outweigh its purported benefits of improved coordination. By vastly expanding unaccountable supranational authority, neglecting basic human rights safeguards, facilitating regulatory capture by special interests, undermining key bioethical protections, and centralizing control over public health in an opaque bureaucracy, it creates a framework ripe for serious abuse.
The agreement's glaring deficits of democratic legitimacy, scientific impartiality, and respect for human dignity are structural and pervasive. They cannot be remedied through minor tweaks or mere "transparency" reforms alone. Member States should reject this irredeemably defective instrument outright and demand an entirely new, inclusive process based on the non-negotiable imperatives of individual liberty and true popular consent. Failing that, it may regrettably become necessary to exit a captured WHO altogether and forge a new model of public health cooperation deferential to national sovereignty and self-determination.
The profound inadequacies of the current approach should impel a fundamental rethink of the global pandemic response architecture. One anchored in radical decentralization, maximal transparency, robust accountability, and inviolable human freedom as the foundational organizing principles, in stark contrast to the failed dictatorial paradigm of 2020-2023. A once-in-a-generation opportunity exists to catalyze such a transformation - but only if a critical mass of the world's citizens rapidly mobilizes to reject illegitimate efforts to lock in the very worst elements of that disastrous record under cover of "emergency." The mass movements stopped when CHAOS agents told everyone the treaty is fixed now by minor concessions. Its aggravating.
Ultimately, the choice between submitting to an open-ended technocratic "New Normal" and an adaptive, pluralistic, freedom-respecting international order may be the inflection point that defines the direction of the 21st century. Its outcome, for good or for ill, will reverberate across the remainder of human history.
At this hinge moment, with the dreams of the world's peoples precariously in the balance, neutrality is complicity and silence is acquiescence.
The last, best hope of forestalling the former dystopia and realizing the latter vision lies in the vigilant, unyielding resistance of all people of goodwill and commitment to human dignity as the lodestar of public health.
Our descendants yet unborn will be either the grateful beneficiaries or the tragic casualties of the resolve we summon in humanity's hour of testing.
Executive Summary
The World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a new international "Pandemic Agreement" aimed at strengthening global pandemic preparedness and response. However, a comprehensive analysis of the draft text published on April 12, 2025 reveals numerous alarming provisions that gravely threaten national sovereignty, democratic governance, fundamental human rights, and evidence-based public health policy.
The highly questionable benefits of enhanced pandemic coordination are vastly outweighed by the agreement's potential to permanently expand and centralize sweeping, unaccountable power in the hands of unelected WHO bureaucrats at the expense of democratically legitimized national and individual decision-making. Its vaguely worded text is rife with undefined terms vulnerable to abuse, startling omissions of elementary human rights protections, and subtle loopholes that cumulatively erode essential checks and balances on supranational authority.
As such, this report unequivocally recommends that Member States decisively reject this irredeemably defective agreement as a profound threat to liberal democracy and human freedom. Should it nevertheless be coercively railroaded through without meaningfully addressing its glaring flaws, responsible nations must be prepared to withdraw from a morally compromised WHO that has forfeited its legitimacy of representing the common good.
The only path forward is to construct a new, decentralized global public health architecture that respects national sovereignty and individual liberty as sacrosanct guiding principles.
Irreversible Re-delegation of National Sovereignty
At its core, the proposed agreement aims to radically expand the WHO's governing authority over member states and render it effectively permanent, unrestricted by any requirement for declared international emergencies:
Proclaim open-ended "public health emergencies of international concern" and issue dictatorial "recommendations" that countries are practically powerless to contest (Art. 4, 6, 19);[^1]
Compel governments to adopt "whole-of-society" approaches that subordinate all policies across every sector to top-down supranational decrees subject to no meaningful limit (Art. 5);[^2]
Override democratically enacted national laws on intellectual property and medical product regulation to rubber stamp approval of WHO-favored interventions with negligible transparency (Art. 9-10);[^3]
Expropriate genetic resources and confidential research data from countries and corporations to forcibly "share" with the developing world on specious "equity" grounds (Art. 12);[^4]
Commandeer the allocation of vital healthcare supplies and resources globally via opaque, unaccountable algorithmic "coordination mechanisms." (Art. 13-13bis).[^5]
These extraordinary competencies extend far beyond any reasonable conception of the WHO's core mandate into an all-encompassing supranational government unconstrained by democratic oversight, constitutionalism, or judicial redress.[^6] By assenting to these terms, countries would be delivering draconian control over health, economic, social, security and technology policy to a demonstrably compromised organization with a calamitous record of upholding scientific integrity and human rights in emergencies.[^7]
The ambiguous, open-ended derogation provisions and glaring omission of clear pathways for states to retract authority once granted create grave risks that signatories could become permanently ensnared in exceedingly burdensome obligations with no escape.[^8] Irrespective of drafter intent, the unavoidable reality is that this agreement launches a frontal assault on state sovereignty and democratic self-determination at a moment of unprecedented fragility in the post-war international order.[^9] No purported imperative of exigency can sanction such a reckless leap into a "post-democratic" global technocracy of experts.
The agreement's nominal assurances of respecting sovereignty are fatally flawed by its intrusive provisions enabling an unelected entity to impose maximal policy constraints on states. This amounts to an audacious usurpation of authority initiated by complicit governments, not just a unilateral WHO power play. However, that does not negate its profound tension with constitutional orders vesting ultimate public health powers in democratically accountable national institutions.[^a]
Indeed, the International Health Regulations (2005) unambiguously affirm that "States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies."[^b] By systematically subordinating this sovereign prerogative to supranational diktats, the agreement transgresses a foundational tenet of global health law.
The radical delegations proposed - from enabling the WHO to unilaterally declare emergencies without substantive review to dictating states' allocation of health resources - vastly exceed the legitimate scope of conventional treaties. They amount to nothing short of a wholesale re-engineering of the bedrock constitutional balance between international and national authorities in the public health domain.
Such tectonic transformations cannot be realized by executive fiat. They demand intensive, open deliberation and affirmative ratification by the peoples of the world acting through their elected branches, not closed-door machinations of a transnational technocratic elite. Any international instrument that so drastically constrains legislatures' health policy discretion must be embraced via the highest standards of democratic consent.
Scandalously, the agreement's brazen "provisional application" clause and low threshold for entry into force aim to circumvent this inviolable democratic requirement. They establish a treacherous slippery slope for states to become bound to this extraordinary transfer of power through a profoundly deficient process insulated from proper scrutiny. This charts an inexorable trajectory toward sublimating national self-governance to an empowered WHO bureaucracy.
The choice to embark on such a perilous course rests with the peoples of the world who will bear the incalculable risks. But to present it as a perfunctory procedural matter devoid of vast constitutional implications is a pernicious deceit. The world stands at a "sovereignty inflection point" that will define the contours of public health governance for generations. Once crossed, there may be no returning to the pre-existing balance of power.
Never in history has any WHO instrument had such a deep, intrusive impact on states' internal legal authority and self-determination on matters of such intimate domestic concern. If ever an international agreement demanded a "Global Constitutional Convention" to meticulously deliberate its rules before irrevocable lock-in, this would be it.
Champions of government by the people over rule by technocratic fiat in public health's life-and-death domain must approach this redefinition of WHO-state relations with maximal wariness. Any abdication of democratic health powers to a distant, unaccountable entity must be rejected absent incontrovertible proof that the benefits vastly outweigh the myriad hazards to accountable national governance.
In the end, the rules that govern a society's most profound matters of life, death and freedom cannot be determined by a cabal of international functionaries behind a veil of secrecy. They must be forged in the crucible of robust domestic democratic validation. The world must not sleepwalk into a "new international health order" without informed consent by the global demos. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Human Rights on the Chopping Block
The agreement pays fleeting lip service to human rights while systematically failing to:
Concretely differentiate mandatory diktats from voluntary guidance, or affirm nations' non-derogable right to decline WHO orders based on local democratic will (Art. 3);[^10]
Unequivocally prohibit all forms of vaccine compulsion and discrimination by governments or corporations under the banner of WHO recommendations (Art. 14);[^11]
Establish "sunset clauses" on emergency powers and guarantee citizens due process rights to legally contest disproportionate WHO-rationalized liberty restrictions (Art. 19);[^12]
Decisively foreclose the censorship and suppression of scientific dissent, no matter how "misinformation"-maligned during declared crises (Art. 18).[^13]
The deafening silence on bedrock civil liberties treaties like the ICCPR and Siracusa Principles, which stringently constrain "emergency" overreach, unmistakably signals that the agreement's paramount aim is permanently dismantling human rights guardrails, not upholding them.[^14]
Its platitudinous "equity" rhetoric is a trojan horse for enabling the very state-sponsored coercion and criminalization of bodily autonomy witnessed during Covid, only with binding international imprimatur.[^15]
Public Health Policy Driven by Corporate Agenda
The R&D and regulatory harmonization language reads like a shameless Big Pharma wishlist singularly focused on rubber stamping patented vaccines and medicines over generic solutions while demolishing guardrails (Art. 9, 14).[^16] Lowering approval standards to the lowest common denominator and "relying" on WHO rulings would eviscerate the rigorous national quality controls that are the last line of defense for patient safety.[^17]
Meanwhile, the expansive technology transfer provisions throw open the floodgates for countries and companies to be stripped of proprietary genetic and biological assets under an ill-defined "equity" crusade.[^18] The unmistakable upshot is to turbocharge captive product markets and liability-free profits under the guise of access.[^19] Breathtaking conflicts of interest as with Covid contracts are all but guaranteed absent safeguards.[^20]
Pandemic Pathogen Trafficking Nightmare
The "Pathogen Sharing" system enshrined in Article 12 to encourage countries to hand over dangerous germs is a pandora's box devoid of even rudimentary biosafety and verification protocols to prevent catastrophic releases.[^21] Instead of shutting the sieve of shoddy "gain-of-function" research exposed by Covid's origins, it doubles down on transferring deadly bugs to reckless facilities under "equitable access."[^22]
Unfathomably, there are zero concrete requirements for monitoring the chain of custody, restricting access, reporting mishaps or holding facilities liable for world-wrecking leaks.[^23] Most shockingly, this nightmarish "biodefense" boondoggle is to be administered entirely outside domestic democratic control.[^24] A more perfect storm for the next lab-spawned pandemic engineered by unscrupulous actors is hard to imagine.[^25]
IoJ is one of the last groups standing STILL FIGHTING the treaty in a real way.
Be a HERO OF HUMANITY! Donate today!
Obliteration of Informed Consent in Medicine
Articles 9-11 and 14 lumping all pandemic "countermeasures" together for "expedited" approval with no distinction between proven vs. experimental interventions effectively demolish bedrock informed consent requirements for unapproved drugs and vaccines.[^26] These were the single most critical medical ethics breakthrough of the 20th century following the Nuremberg Nazi atrocities, enshrined in the Helsinki Declaration and Belmont Report to stop human experimentation without voluntary assent.[^27] [^28]
The agreement shockingly contains zero mention of these inviolable principles while sneaking in language to sidestep gold-standard safety testing protocols that might slow down the rubber-stamping of Pharma inventions like mRNA via EUA loopholes.[^29] Real-world injury data like VAERS on these rushed injections' toll powerfully attest to the mortal dangers of this reckless model, fatal blood clots and shattered immune systems be damned.[^30] Shattering the "right of refusal" for invasive government-Pharma products on the international stage would be an unconscionable crime against humanity.[^31]
Big Pharma-Gates Stranglehold on Science
The proposed governance structure concentrates all decision-making in a quasi-accountable assembly, committees and panels stacked with ideologically captured Gates Foundation-Gavi "experts" religiously committed to proprietary one-size-fits-all biomedical solutions over nuanced local responses.[^32] There is no real pipeline for contrarian researchers who challenged the calamitous failures of Covid orthodoxy on lockdowns, masks, generic drugs, alternative treatments or natural immunity to penetrate this groupthink cartel.[^33] [^34]
Even more egregiously, the "civil society" engagement provisions are a brazen power play by pharma and philanthro-capitalist lobbies to cement their already obscene domination of policy to the total exclusion of dissenting public interest advocates.[^35] Their economic and political capture of the global health agenda would be complete, unaccountable, and irreversible.
Institutionalized "State of Emergency" Abuse
Alarmingly, the agreement's "provisional application" and low trigger for binding implementation create a treacherous slippery slope for governments to subject their entire populations to its most overreaching terms without any meaningful legislative input let alone a referendum.[^36] Like the EU's widely despised Lisbon Treaty, it establishes an almost irreversible one-way ratchet toward global technocracy over national democracy in the guise of an administrative tweak.[^37]
If allowed to take effect through the stealth of obscure, fast-tracked executive action, citizens everywhere would wake up to discover that their elected representatives had essentially been permanently defanged on the highest matters of individual and societal well-being under the pretext of "preparedness." Escape would become all but impossible as a practical matter.[^38]
Forging a Free and Humane Global Health Order
In sum, this agreement embodies an intolerable frontal assault on democratic sovereignty, constitutional order and fundamental freedoms that were achieved through centuries of historic popular struggle. Its unaccountable "Pandemic Czar" model empowered to trample basic rights and self-government via fiat by Tedros is the antithesis of an inclusive, tolerant and rules-based international health system.
So profound and far-reaching a transformation of global health law negotiated in secret, with virtually no public awareness let alone informed consent, fails the most elementary tests of popular legitimacy.[^39] The utter lack of transparency regarding conflicts of interest and ideological agendas that potentially influenced the drafting only compound this indefensible subversion of deliberative due process.[^40]
An instrument of such stupendous consequence for every human being on the planet simply cannot be decided by a minuscule clique of unrepresentative elites anointed as saviors. It unquestionably requires a maximally inclusive, ethically impeccable process subjecting every provision to adversarial scrutiny from all quarters of civil society - most critically dissident experts iced out of the official response.[^41] That this never even remotely happened destroys the agreement's moral authority on arrival.
If WHO forces through this irredeemable text in the face of devastating substantiated critiques without radically corrective amendments, Member States will have no real choice but to repudiate both the agreement and the organization as terminal threats to self-determination. Failure to stop this runaway train now may well represent the death knell of the liberal democratic nation-state as we know it.[^42]
Accordingly, the imperative of the hour is to go beyond defense and fundamentally reimagine a new decentralized, locally empowering architecture of global public health cooperation from first principles.[^43] One anchored in maximal transparency, authentic deliberation, robust national sovereignty and individual liberty as non-negotiable preconditions, in diametric opposition to the prevailing "Philanthro-Capitalist" paradigm that has captured the field.[^44]
This will require an unprecedented alliance of free peoples, sovereign governments and public-spirited institutions to claw the reins of history back from a morally desiccated pseudo-elite before it cements the infrastructure of a permanent corporate-biosecurity control grid. The window to forge such a global freedom community ahead of the May 2025 WHA vote is rapidly closing.
We here at IOJ, are frantically getting our new community site ready so we can meet with you awesome proactive activists every Saturday, noon Eastern time starting next Sat.
We need to realize this existential civilizational inflection point also presents a singular opportunity to reject the siren song of medical collectivism and unleash the bottom-up, adaptive, open-source dynamism of voluntary human cooperation. It’s time. The monumental choice between the well-worn road to technocratic serfdom and the rugged but luminous path of democratic experimentalism has never been clearer - nor the stakes for the future of human dignity more immense.
Is the silent majority prepared to walk into a medicalized dystopia with eyes wide open after the harrowing lessons of 2020-2025? Or will we at long last take our stand on first principles and declare as with one voice that our birthrights shall not be bartered on the international auction block - not on our watch and not ever again?
The response of the next 3 weeks may very well decide the answer. The Door to Free and DUMB is to move on to other topics, and allow the vote with no real coordinated protests, when this is the most URGENT and SERIOUS. For the sake of generations yet unborn, let us be SMART this round and resolve to meet this momentous hour with the unflinching moral courage that the Sovereign of history demands and prove ourselves worthy of the sacred bequest of liberty-in-law our forebearers so devotedly bestowed unto us. Our forefathers worked hard to give us a system of law and freedom, IoJ will be damned if we let it go that easy.
Dear WHO - No. You cant win this. We won’t allow you to.
We are the Door to Free and SMART. We NEVER STAND DOWN.
WE NEVER LET TYRANTS GET THEIR WAY. CONQUER OR DIE.
Tedros and the overly compliant WHO Member States (192 remain) drool over the concept of PANDEMIC PROFITS!
The Door To Free And DUMB Is Standing Down Now On The Evil Pandemic Treaty Soon To Pass
CHAOS Agents Say Its Fine. It's NOT.
Chaos agents taking credit for "fixing" the treaty about to be signed...THEY SAY, “JUST CHILL…. IT’S ALL FINE” - We FIXED IT AND ITS BENIGN NOW.
But HELLO - ITS A VERY BAD AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT BENIGN - Its very very very dangerous. WAKE THE HELL UP SHEEPLE! Stop listening to controlled chaos!
Sign the Demands Now! IoJ will deliver the signatures to all nations before WHA & FOLLOW UP ON THE PROCESS.
Sign both on NoticeandDemand.org easy as pie
You can help by sharing WHOWatch.org EXPLAINER PAGE far and wide to show people why to sign these - it has info, links to sign the petitions & dates for WHA, etc.
Related reading on our saga with WHO:
Footnotes
[^1]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 4, 6, 19. [^2]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 5. [^3]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9-10. [^4]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 12. [^5]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 13-13bis. [^6]: Gostin, Lawrence, The World Health Organization Unveiled: Controversy and Opportunity in Global Health Governance (2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4032804. [^7]: Thomson, Stephen and Ferhani, Eric, The World Health Organization and Global Health Law (2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4192725. [^8]: Habibi, Roojin et al., The Stellenbosch Consensus on Legal National Responses to Public Health Risks, Lancet (2022), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01278-7/fulltext. [^9]: Venkatapuram, S, Rethinking WHO's Structure And Role In Pandemics: Health Equity, Human Rights And Multilateralism, Health Hum Rights (2022), https://www.hhrjournal.org/2022/03/rethinking-whos-structure-and-role-in-pandemics-health-equity-human-rights-and-multilateralism/. [^10]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 3. [^11]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 14. [^12]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 19. [^13]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 18. [^14]: Spadaro, A. COVID-19: Testing the Limits of Human Rights. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 11, 317–325 (2020), https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/covid19-testing-the-limits-of-human-rights/DCC8EFF2B3F1438A87C7BAE230FF82B1. [^15]: Murphy, Therese, Health and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, 2013), https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/health-and-human-rights/ch4-world-health-organization-and-the-right-to-health.
[^16]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9, 14. [^17]: Rizvi, Zain, Expanding Access to Medicines by Rethinking Exclusivities and Addressing Gaps in the Global Pharmaceutical Patent System, Health Affairs (2022), https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20220803.951081/. [^18]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 11-12. [^19]: Herder, Matthew, How Transparent are Drug Companies About Their Clinical Trials?, Slate (2022), https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/pharmaceutical-clinical-trial-data-transparency-solutions.html. [^20]: Thacker, Paul, Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial, BMJ (2021), https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635. [^21]: Gronvall, Gigi, The Interfaces Between Security and Science for Biosecurity and Biotechnology, Committee on Dual Use Research of Concern (2022), https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26600/chapter/11. [^22]: Muller, R., "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" Revisited, Environmental Chemistry Letters (2022), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-022-01509-7. [^23]: Lewis, Dyani, The Shifting Sands of 'Gain-of-Function' Research, Nature (2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x. [^24]: Lipsitch, Marc and Galvani, Alison, Ethical Alternatives to Experiments with Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens, PLoS Med (2014), https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001646. [^25]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 12. [^26]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9-11, 14. [^27]: World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (2013), https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. [^28]: The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html. [^29]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 9. [^30]: Rose, Jessica, Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System?, Sci. Publ. Health Pol. & Law (2021), https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_4588b37931024c5d98e35a84acf8069a.pdf. [^31]: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 7. [^32]: Reddy, Srividhya, WHO: The Billion Dollar Question, Maverick Citizen (2022), https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-05-24-who-the-billion-dollar-question/. [^33]: Sridhar, Devi, WHO's Attempt to Navigate Politics in a Polarised World, Think Global Health (2020), https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/whos-attempt-navigate-politics-polarised-world. [^34]: Benkler, Yochai, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics (2018), https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624. [^35]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 16. [^36]: WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft, Art. 35. [^37]: Grimm, Dieter, Does Europe Need a Constitution? (2010), https://www.jstor.org/stable/20775782. [^38]: Weiler, J.H.H. and Trachtman, J.P., European Constitutionalism and Its Discontents (1996-1997), https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nwilr17&div=6&src=home. [^39]: Shaffer, G. and Pollack, M.A., Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance (2011), https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/abstracts/article/abs/hard-vs-soft-law-alternatives-complements-and-antagonists-in-international-governance/F4DB11AA3BD9495AA9CCD90F25A7FF5A. [^40]: Mulgan, Richard, Transparency and Public Sector Performance (2014), https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1pwtd1w. [^41]: Smith, Katherine, Securing Circulation Pharmaceutically: Upgrading the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Global Influenza Virus Sharing, BJHS (2021), https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/abs/securing-circulation-pharmaceutically-upgrading-the-efficiency-and-effectiveness-of-global-influenza-virus-sharing/B14B48C00B9BB9F11BA07FD3B9B84194. [^42]: Hudson, Michael, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (2003), https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol15/iss2/4/. [^43]: Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P., Global Business Regulation (2000), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-business-regulation/9DF8EDDF99588B3AAAD0D4F86B72CFF2. [^44]: Youde, Jeremy, Globalization and Health (2007), https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315682648/globalization-health-jeremy-youde.\
[^a]: Thomson, S. and Ferhani, E. The Legality of Using the WHO's Pandemic Treaty to Respond to Future Health Emergencies, EJIL:Talk! (May 10, 2022), https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-using-the-whos-pandemic-treaty-to-respond-to-future-health-emergencies/ [^b]: International Health Regulations (2005), Article 3.4, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580410
I'm putting all on notice in our government in the US! If you sell my rights to WHO, I'm coming after you! I am a physician and I have earned the right to take care of myself and patients who choose to come to me. WHO is practicing medicine without a license and I refuse to fold under their demands! No politician has the right to sell me to anyone! Be brave enough to let me know who you are cause I'm coming after you! No one has a right to sell humans! I demand this stop! 🛑
Took actions, signed and shared!
WOAH/WHO/WEF/UN - ALL MUST BE CULLED!
OH HELL NO TO THE INSANITY OF 'ONE HEALTH'! As if every unique being were interchangeable parts of a soulless AI machine of total slavery!
If only every country exited the WHO!
KEEP UP THE STRUGGLE! BE VIGILANT! NO RESTING ON LAURELS!
MERS! MONEYPOX! All those WHO/WEF/UN control freaks, BUGGER OFF AND LEAVE US ALONE!
NO TO YOUR CORRUPT MONEY-MAKING RACKETS!
SCREW THE HYPOCHONDRIA GERMAPHOBIC FEAR HYSTERIA! DO NOT CONSENT! Avian flu is for the birds! RESIST!
Can't say this often enough! The Military/Industrial Complex and the Biowarfare/industrial Complex, WEF agenda and the evils assaulting humanity are from one and the same source - it is the 99% against the diabolical GREED of the 0.01% who should not be in charge of anything!
And BIG pHARMa is an arsenal making permanently sickly addicted slaves dependent on their products - the complete opposite of actual health.
SERIOUSLY FOLKS! KEEP FIGHTING! Can't say this often enough! The WHO/UN/WEF are totally criminal entities that must be litigated and dismantled off the face of the earth and its upper level employees tried and jailed. Nothing THE WORLD HELL ORGANIZATION does has any legitimacy.
EQUITY is Orwellian doublespeak for equal ENSLAVEMENT of us proles under the technocratic parasitical malevolent rule by control freak, power-mad psychos. The word EQUITY makes my blood boil whenever I hear it now that I understand its true meaning.
A vast majority of so-called leaders and Public 'Serpents' around the world have been bribed, blackmailed/coerced into serving the interests of their technocratic New World Ordure parasite masters and not We the People.
The world needs a lot more rejections of the UN/WHO's nefarious schemes.
Peddling pure poison! Folks have to wake up to reality: health comes from organic diet, daily exercise and clean living and never from a needle or a pill except in dire, rare traumatic injuries.
Can't say this often enough!
It was NEVER about health! The Powers That Should Not Be were ALWAYS about they want you DEAD or a SLAVE! This is a painful truth to accept but we the people must wake up and fight back! And toxic injections were/are a huge part of their arsenal!
KEEP FIGHTING! All the perps who pushed this greatest crime against humanity, all the way down to the local level, must get their comeuppances!
Proudly ANTI-VAXX! Reiterating for the sake of newbies and to support this post.
Ban all vaccine jabs! There has never been a 'safe and effective' vaccine since Edward Jenner's fraud over 200 years ago as per 'Dissolving Illusions' by Suzanne Humphries and 'Turtles All the Way Down' by Anonymous. Health can never come from a needle or pills, but from healthy eating, healthy exercise and healthy living! virustruth.net
JAB INJURIES: GROSS CALAMARI BLOOD CLOTS/AUTISM TSUNAMI/SADS/TURBO CANCER/BIZARRE TERMINAL ILLNESSES: More tragic victims of the ruling parasite genocidal enslavement agenda, sacrificed on the altar of psychopathic greed and hatred of humanity.
PSYCHOPATHS! MEGALOMANIACS!
The monsters in human skin suits who rule the world get a sadistic vampiric thrill and boost from perpetrating the vilest most demonic crimes against the most vulnerable (babies and small children) and then corrupting the system to get away with it scot free! We the People must stop them, there are a lot more of us than them!
Please check out this substack! ponerology.substack.com
Divide and rule! Agents provocateurs anyone, FALSE FLAGS, propaganda social engineering psyops? Keeping us proles at each others' throats while the globalist technocrat predators laugh all the way to the BIS and The Bank of Rothschild's!
The terrible senators, horrifying Governor 'Gruesome Newscum', 'Lone Scum', Soros, 'Benedict' Biden and Harris and even Trump, Vance, and 'Ramaswampy' et al are blatant fully owned and operated puppets of their globalist technocrat parasite masters same as other numerous 'PUBLIC SERPENTS' infesting by design from above, the bureaucratic apparatus.
BURN BACK BETTER!
CREATIVITY! ARTISTRY! IMAGINATION! SPIRITUALITY! HUMOR! LOVING KINDNESS! These are the best ways to fight THEM!
HELL NO TO STARGATE! HELL NO TO DEEPSEEK! HELL NO TO AI! technocracy.news
Life everywhere is being assaulted by THE TECHNOCRATIC OMNIWAR! RESIST! DO NOT CONSENT TO ALL THINGS DIGITAL, 'SMART', AI, 5G, NO CASH - ALL OF IT! dhughes.substack.com Technocrat ruling class psychos get a sadistic thrill from their powers over life and death and hurting all who stand in their way and they need the resources worldwide to build their digital total slavery control grids (herd survivors into 15 minute city digital prisons)!
AI is designed to be anti-human/anti-life programmed by technocrat control freak psychos - garbage in = garbage out. Everyone got along just fine without all these absurd and downright satanic electronic gadgets that did not exist until recently. NOBODY NEEDS THIS AI CRAP!
Bless and thank you for doing what you do.