Stop PABS!!! W.H.O. Is Attempting To Institutionalize Experimental Medical Authority Through International Law? Sign & Share Demand - Last Chance to Stop WHO Treaty!

URGENT! SIGN NOW!! Is YOUR country trying to sell you out and join PABS? Are you aware of the global plan for countries & WHO to profiteer off alleged pathogens and creating "countermeasures"?

Things are coming to a head on the WHO Pandemic Treaty, which was ADOPTED and is awaiting the finalization of PABS.

THIS IS A HUGE DEAL FOLKS - ONCE ITS LOCKED IN, ITS LOCKSTEP.

The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) framework scheduled for World Health Organization negotiation September 15-19, 2025 represents the most significant threat to constitutional governance and individual rights in modern international law.

Under PABS, pharmaceutical manufacturers would face mandatory obligations to contribute "20 percent of their real-time production of safe, quality and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics" to WHO distribution during declared emergencies, creating binding international requirements that systematically override national regulatory determinations and constitutional protections.

This framework emerges NOW, precisely as domestic authorities acknowledge fundamental failures in experimental medical programs, a mission close to our hearts.

Secretary Kennedy's August 27th decision to withdraw mRNA product recommendations for healthy populations while maintaining identical interventions for vulnerable demographics exposes the systematic contradictions underlying current regulatory frameworks. PABS would institutionalize these failed systems through binding treaty obligations that transform temporary emergency measures into permanent international authority operating outside constitutional accountability mechanisms.

PABS Framework Is The Ultimate Fusion of Governmental Authority and Pharmaceutical Profits - The ULTIMATE CONFLICT FROM HELL

Sign the emergency petition opposing PABS treaty ratification before WHO negotiations begin:

suethewho.org/stoppabs

suethewho.org/stoppabs

SIGN NOW! FORMAL STOP PABS - DEMAND TO HALT W.H.O. INSTITUTIONALIZED HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATY

The proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system creates unprecedented economic incentives that explain widespread governmental support despite documented constitutional violations and systematic informed consent failures. Nations identifying and sharing pathogen samples receive financial benefits from resulting pharmaceutical products, while companies gain guaranteed international distribution channels funded through taxpayer treaty obligations rather than market accountability or safety demonstration.

Under PABS, WHO officials would gain discretionary authority to determine when "pathogen emergencies" justify activation of mandatory contribution requirements from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Manufacturers would face annual corporate fees based on their size to fund permanent PABS system operations, creating financing mechanisms for international experimental product distribution that operates outside national constitutional frameworks.

This transforms biological materials into profitable international commodities while socializing research costs through mandatory governmental participation in experimental medical programs. The framework establishes binding requirements for signatory nations to maintain permanent capacity for rapid distribution of experimental medical countermeasures during future declared emergencies, transforming temporary measures into permanent international distribution systems that bypass national regulatory review and constitutional oversight mechanisms.

Systematic Procedural Violations Are Clearly Rendering PABS Formation Legally Invalid

Documentary evidence reveals comprehensive procedural violations during PABS negotiations that render any resulting agreement juridically void under international law requirements for good faith negotiation and meaningful stakeholder participation. Multiple documented instances demonstrate systematic exclusion of developing country positions, with diplomatic sources confirming that "the Co-chair of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body tried to shut down the Africa Group's proposals" during critical PABS discussions.

These procedural irregularities violate established diplomatic protocols governing treaty formation and contradict Vienna Convention requirements for legitimate international agreement formation. The systematic exclusion of stakeholder proposals represents content-based discrimination against organizations advocating scientific methodologies or perspectives diverging from institutional preferences, rather than legitimate procedural considerations.

PABS negotiations have encountered what diplomatic sources characterize as "fundamental disagreements between countries on whether pathogen access should be linked to benefit-sharing," with developed countries including European Union member states explicitly opposing benefit-sharing linkage requirements mandated under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol. These disagreements expose constitutional impossibilities inherent in the PABS approach, where the framework assumes legitimate international emergency authority capable of overriding national constitutional protections—authority that constitutional challenges have demonstrated does not exist under established governance principles.

Vienna Convention Legal Authorities Prohibit PABS Treaty Formation

The systematic violations underlying experimental medical frameworks create fundamental legal obstacles to WHO treaty formation under established international law principles governing institutional capacity and legitimate authority. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes comprehensive requirements that cannot be satisfied when organizations demonstrate inability to defend fundamental authority claims through competent legal process.

Article 26 - Pacta Sunt Servanda Requirements: Treaties must be performed in good faith, requiring resolution of fundamental disputes regarding authority before treaty obligations can be created. WHO's systematic defaults when confronted with constitutional challenges regarding experimental medical programs demonstrate institutional incapacity to perform treaty obligations in good faith. When international organizations systematically choose silence over evidence-based response to constitutional requirements, they establish legal incapacity preventing legitimate treaty formation.

Article 46 - Internal Law Violations: States cannot be bound by treaty provisions violating internal constitutional law regarding competence to conclude treaties. Constitutional challenges across multiple jurisdictions have demonstrated systematic inability of national health authorities to provide evidence supporting experimental program authorization under constitutional scrutiny standards. This creates legal incapacity for domestic ratification of international agreements addressing such programs without violating constitutional governance requirements.

Article 48 - Fraud in Treaty Formation: Treaties procured through systematic deception regarding essential elements are void ab initio under international law. The systematic misrepresentation of experimental gene therapy interventions as traditional vaccines to circumvent informed consent requirements establishes comprehensive fraud in the foundations underlying proposed treaty formation. Recipients received no information about participation in ongoing clinical investigations, experimental genetic modification technologies, or unprecedented cellular production mechanisms.

Article 53 - Peremptory Norms Conflicts: Treaties conflicting with jus cogens norms including prohibition of non-consensual medical experimentation are automatically void. Current experimental medical frameworks systematically violate established peremptory norms governing informed consent in medical research, creating automatic invalidity for any treaty obligations institutionalizing such violations.

WHO Framework Violations and Institutional Incapacity Issues - Participation Is Lacking

The World Health Organization has demonstrated systematic violations of its own Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) that establish institutional incapacity to create binding treaty obligations. Documented censorship of scientific materials and temporal exclusion of accredited civil society organizations from formal consultative processes directly contravenes FENSA paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) regarding "transparent, open, constructive, and timely interactions" and paragraph 10 regarding "meaningful and effective participation."

WHO's institutional integration with the COVID Action Platform and World Economic Forum procurement frameworks creates systematic conflicts of interest that violate Article 37 of the WHO Constitution regarding organizational independence. The COVID Action Platform, launched by the World Economic Forum under Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab to coordinate global COVID-19 response efforts, serves as a coordinating mechanism between WHO and private sector entities including pharmaceutical companies, effectively integrating commercial interests directly into public health decision-making processes. This integration vests procurement authorities in entities with direct pecuniary interests potentially adverse to populations they purport to serve, creating structured conflicts that subordinate public health considerations to commercial imperatives while violating constitutional requirements for institutional independence and impartiality.

The implementation of shared information systems and revolving personnel arrangements between WHO and private sector entities creates institutional dependency relationships that compromise decision-making independence and violate FENSA paragraph 7(a) requirements for maintaining "WHO's integrity, independence, credibility and reputation." These systematic violations establish fundamental legal disabilities preventing legitimate treaty formation under clean hands doctrine and institutional estoppel principles.

The 4 Unresolved International WHO Disputes We Filed Create A Very Real Legal Impossibility

Critical to constitutional objections is the documented fact that WHO Internal Oversight Services formally referred fundamental authority disputes to national authorities for resolution pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of established dispute resolution procedures. These referrals remain unresolved after extensive periods, creating ongoing international disputes that must be addressed before legitimate treaty formation can proceed under Vienna Convention requirements.

Interest of Justice filed four formal disputes with WHO that persist despite systematic, documented, and procedurally proper referral through competent national authorities. These disputes, bearing specifically enumerated case identification within the WHO Office of Internal Oversight Services, were formally presented to the Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs within HHS during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 stakeholder listening sessions and subsequently documented through multiple written communications.

These disputes encompass procedural defects in International Health Regulations amendments, document censorship violations, scientific deficiencies in Emergency Use Listing procedures, and institutional integration with private sector procurement mechanisms that create systematic conflicts of interest.

Under established international law principles, states cannot legitimately ratify treaties addressing subject matter remaining under active dispute through competent national authority proceedings. When fundamental disputes regarding legal authority underlying proposed treaty obligations remain unresolved through national authority review, states lack constitutional competence necessary to enter binding international agreements addressing disputed authority without violating internal law requirements for treaty formation.

The Juridical Vacuum that Prevents Legitimate Treaty Formation - UNSETTLED WHO DISPUTES

The four unresolved disputes between the United States and WHO create more than procedural obstacles—they establish juridical vacuum that makes PABS treaty formation legally impossible under Vienna Convention requirements. When international organizations formally refer fundamental authority questions to national governments for resolution, they create ongoing international disputes that must be addressed before legitimate treaty formation can proceed.

These disputes encompass the foundational legal authority underlying the entire experimental medical framework that PABS seeks to institutionalize.

The IHR amendment violations demonstrate systematic procedural failures in WHO treaty formation processes.

The documented censorship and civil society exclusion violate WHO's own Framework of Engagement requirements.

The PCR diagnostic deficiencies establish that the scientific foundation underlying emergency declarations was systematically invalid.

The WHO-HHS regulatory integration creates geographic disparities in product classification that circumvent informed consent protections through regulatory arbitrage.

Under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention, states cannot legitimately enter treaty obligations addressing subject matter that remains under unresolved dispute through competent national authority proceedings.

WHO's referral of these IoJ disputes to national authorities while simultaneously advancing PABS negotiations creates fundamental legal contradiction—the organization seeks treaty-making authority over experimental medical programs while acknowledging that disputes regarding those same programs remain unresolved through national authority review.

This juridical vacuum prevents legitimate governmental authority to ratify PABS regardless of diplomatic consensus or international pressure. Constitutional governments cannot legally participate in treaty formation addressing disputed subject matter without violating internal law requirements for evidence-based treaty ratification and constitutional competence to conclude international agreements.

Constitutional Enforcement Is Needed NOW During This Critical Treaty Formation Window

The extended timeline for PABS negotiations creates unprecedented opportunity for constitutional enforcement during active treaty formation when legal challenges maintain maximum effectiveness for preventing ratification of agreements built upon constitutionally deficient foundations.

Diplomatic sources confirm that states cannot sign agreements until conclusion of PABS annex negotiations, with signature and ratification deferred until completion tentatively scheduled for the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026.

This timeline provides adequate opportunity for comprehensive constitutional challenges to establish legal limitations preventing ratification of agreements violating established constitutional requirements for legitimate governmental authority and individual rights protection.

Unlike challenging international agreements after signature and ratification, constitutional interventions during negotiations can establish binding legal constraints that make treaty formation legally impossible for governments operating under constitutional due process requirements.

The constitutional enforcement window requires systematic legal coordination across multiple jurisdictions to demonstrate that PABS obligations would institutionalize experimental medical programs lacking constitutional legitimacy and evidentiary foundation. Government officials facing international pressure for treaty participation need documented evidence of systematic regulatory failures and formal citizen support for constitutional compliance to resist coordinated international pressure effectively.

The Evidence Base That Drives Our Constitutional & International Law Challenges

The systematic nature of constitutional violations underlying PABS institutionalization has been revealed through comprehensive legal challenges that exposed coordinated regulatory failures across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. This evidence demonstrates why we are hell-bent on preventing PABS ratification—the framework would permanently institutionalize systematic experimental medical authority that operates through coordinated deception and constitutional circumvention.

Constitutional challenges have established that WHO Emergency Use Listing procedures operate through unauthorized coordination with Department of Defense Other Transaction Authority mechanisms, creating systematic separation of powers violations that render entire regulatory frameworks constitutionally deficient. Internal FOIA documentation confirms that required constitutional safeguards for experimental medical interventions on civilian populations were systematically bypassed through military procurement mechanisms designed for weapons development rather than civilian medical programs.

The Corman-Drosten protocol underlying WHO's Emergency Use Listing of PCR diagnostic methodologies was published in Eurosurveillance and accepted within 24 hours of submission—an extraordinary abbreviation of peer review that contravenes established scientific publication standards. Subsequent independent analysis identified ten fundamental scientific flaws in the methodology, including absence of gold standard validation, inappropriate primer design, insufficient PCR validation, and absence of standardized operating procedures.

Our research has uncovered systematic regulatory coordination between WHO's Emergency Use Listing procedures and FDA determinations that creates regulatory arbitrage where products classified as "investigational" for domestic purposes under 21 C.F.R. § 312.110(b) simultaneously receive international distribution authorization through WHO mechanisms without equivalent disclosure of experimental status. This systematic misrepresentation circumvents established protections for human subjects in experimental medical interventions while violating foundational bioethics principles established after Nuremberg.

"Systematic Informed Consent Violations: Documentary evidence reveals systematic withholding of information regarding the experimental nature of interventions, unknown biodistribution patterns, DNA contamination exceeding regulatory safety thresholds, and unprecedented cellular modification mechanisms."

Emergency Petition FILED: IoJ Is Creating Our Legal Record to Prevent The Treaty Formation

The emergency petition opposing PABS framework ratification creates official legal record establishing documented public objection to treaty formation lacking constitutional foundation. Government officials across multiple jurisdictions face coordinated international pressure for treaty participation despite documented constitutional violations underlying regulatory systems that would be institutionalized through PABS obligations.

Costa Rica was the first to stand up to the treaty and rejected it due to our hard work to alert them to the issues. The top government even called us to a hearing 11-11-2024 to ask our opinions on the treaty.

We told Costa Rica in no uncertain terms: DO NOT DO IT. CHOOSE YOUR PEOPLE PEOPLE OVER PATHOGEN PROFITS.

Why Formal Legal Petitions Create Binding Political Constraints

The emergency petition opposing PABS serves a fundamentally different function than advocacy campaigns or public pressure efforts. Formal legal petitions create official documentation that government officials can cite when justifying constitutional compliance over international diplomatic pressure. When thousands of citizens formally petition their representatives demanding constitutional enforcement, officials gain documented mandate that transforms abstract legal arguments into concrete political authorization for treaty rejection.

This distinction proves crucial during international negotiations where governmental representatives face coordinated pressure for treaty participation despite documented constitutional violations. Officials need more than legal arguments—they require documented citizen support that provides political legitimacy for resisting international agreements that violate established governance principles. The petition creates that documented mandate through formal legal record establishing citizen opposition to treaty obligations lacking constitutional foundation. Citizens may also use it to enforce the law and show they alerted their officials.

Government officials across multiple jurisdictions understand the constitutional problems with PABS but they really do need documented public pressure to justify rejecting international demands for treaty participation.

When citizens formally petition demanding constitutional compliance, they provide political foundation that enables officials to resist treaty ratification by demonstrating documented public support for legal accountability rather than administrative convenience.

Every signature on the petition strengthens the legal record that government officials can utilize to justify constitutional compliance over international pressure during critical treaty negotiation periods. When thousands of citizens formally petition government representatives demanding constitutional enforcement, officials gain documented foundation for rejecting treaty obligations that violate established legal principles governing legitimate governmental authority and individual rights protection.

We have had many SUCCESSFUL campaigns so lets keep going and writing in our wishes and doing our best to be heard in time to make a difference!

The Final Window Determines Humanities Victory or if WHO & Pandemic Treaty Will Prevail

The September 15-19 PABS negotiations represent the absolute final intervention window before diplomatic consensus solidifies into binding international obligations that override national constitutional protections.

It’s a big deal folks.

Unlike post-ratification legal challenges that face procedural obstacles and international law presumptions favoring treaty validity, constitutional interventions during active negotiations can establish binding legal constraints that make treaty formation impossible for governments operating under constitutional due process requirements.

This window possesses unique strategic characteristics that maximize constitutional enforcement effectiveness. Government officials retain complete discretionary authority to reject treaty participation based on constitutional compliance obligations without violating existing international commitments. Diplomatic positions remain fluid, enabling sustained legal pressure to influence governmental determinations before negotiating positions become fixed through formal international commitments.

Constitutional challenges maintain maximum legal effectiveness when deployed during treaty formation periods rather than after diplomatic consensus creates presumptions favoring international agreement validity. LET’S GO!!! ITS ONCE AGAIN OUR “GO TIME” EVERYONE!

The convergence of systematic constitutional violations with active treaty negotiations creates unprecedented opportunity for preventing permanent institutionalization of experimental medical authority through international obligations designed to circumvent national sovereignty protections.

Once PABS negotiations conclude and diplomatic consensus emerges, constitutional challenges face significantly greater procedural obstacles and reduced likelihood of preventing treaty ratification across multiple jurisdictions.

This temporal constraint explains why formal petition signature before September 15 determines whether constitutional law proves stronger than coordinated international authority seeking to institutionalize systematic circumvention of individual rights and national sovereignty.

The petition creates documented citizen mandate that government officials require to justify constitutional compliance during the critical negotiation period when resistance remains legally and politically viable.

Use it or lose it - We worked hard to make it so we hope you sign, share and USE IT!

After September 19, the intervention window closes and constitutional enforcement faces the substantially more difficult challenge of dismantling international agreements after diplomatic formation rather than preventing treaty creation through systematic legal opposition during the negotiation process.

Constitutional Action Required Before September 15 Negotiations

The PABS framework represents the ultimate test of whether constitutional governance proves stronger than coordinated authority seeking to institutionalize systematic circumvention of individual rights and national sovereignty. Every signature creates documentation that strengthens governmental resistance to international pressure for treaty obligations violating established constitutional principles and individual rights protections.

Sign the emergency petition opposing PABS treaty ratification before WHO negotiations begin:

suethewho.org/stoppabs

---

The constitutional enforcement window closes with treaty formation completion in May 2026. Government officials require documented evidence of systematic regulatory failures and formal citizen support for constitutional compliance to resist international pressure for agreements that would make experimental medical authority permanently legal through binding treaty obligations designed to circumvent national sovereignty protections and constitutional accountability mechanisms.

The critical September negotiations approach in eighteen days. The evidence is comprehensive. The constitutional tools are available here for free - we got you EVERYTHING you need. The intervention window is open. You are needed!

PABS negotiations begin September 15th seeking to institutionalize experimental medical programs that regulatory authorities cannot defend under constitutional scrutiny. The emergency petition creates formal legal record supporting governmental constitutional resistance to treaty lacking legitimate evidentiary foundation.

Constitutional law provides the tools. Citizen participation provides the power. Sustained coordination provides the strategy.

The race for constitutional victory has begun. Glad you are part of this historical CRUSHING OF THE DREAMS OF PHARMA-WHO-REGULATOR TYRANTS!

---

Interest of Justice: Defending Constitutional Governance Against Treaty-Based Circumvention

REMEMBER: “The framework establishes binding requirements for signatory nations to maintain permanent capacity for rapid distribution of experimental medical countermeasures during future declared emergencies, transforming temporary measures into permanent international distribution systems that bypass national regulatory review and constitutional oversight mechanisms”

Oh hell no - not on our watch! - IoJ

Other Related Articles:

Stop the PABS Negotiations