Don’t acquire or retain biological weapons (BWC)—versus every nation must go out and find new ones (IHR amendments and Pandemic Treaty draft of October 30, 2023)
Don’t transfer them to others (BWC)—versus transfer them to WHO’s BioHub that will “share them globally” (Pandemic Treaty draft of October 30, 2023)
Fortunately the UN has not yet memory-holed the Biological Weapons Convention, and you can still read it. I have a hard copy just in case.
https://disarmament.unoda.org/biological-weapons/
https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2023/12/guide-to-implement-the-oh-jpa-v19-web.pdf
Don’t say I didn’t warn you. They are putting everything in the world into the One Health basket. Including your children’s education, your food and your money. And don't forget climate change. They still think they can control us using the spectre (“something that haunts or perturbs the mind”) of lost health, threatening us with disease and pandemics.
Now where have I heard that word SPECTRE before? Spectre was a fictional global criminal and terrorist organization featured in the James Bond novels by Ian Fleming. And that is exactly what we are up against now, except by now this organization has captured most of our governments. We don’t know exactly who is at the top, so why not just refer to them as SPECTRE? Everyone knows what that is. We are, after all, up against a global criminal and terrorist organization that stops at nothing. Hidden within the bowels of the UN and WHO, the Biden crime family, etc.
Remember Dolly Parton saying that it takes a lot of money to look this trashy? Well, the same is true for One Health. It took many billions of dollars spreead around the world, corrupting public health education, training and research, to come up with and insert into governments worldwide as vacuous an idea and infrastructure as One Health.
BUT if one world government and control is your goal, think of the trillions you will obtain once the entire world is your oyster. Especially when other peoples’ taxes paid the bulk of those billions.
· The build-out of a massive and expensive global biosecurity system is underway, allegedly to improve our preparedness for future pandemics or biological terrorism. In aid of this agenda two documents are being prepared through the WHO: a broad series of amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR)[1] and a proposed entirely new pandemic treaty, accord or agreement.[2] (Multiple names have been applied to this treaty, with the term WHO CA+ used most often.)
· Both the amendments and treaty are on a deadline to be considered at the annual World Health Assembly meeting, in May 2024.
· A treaty requires a two-thirds vote of the World Health Assembly's 194 member states to be adopted and is binding only for States that have ratified or accepted it (Article 19 and 20, WHO Constitution). It could potentially be enacted into force in the US by a simple signature, without Senate ratification.
· The IHRs and any amendments thereto are adopted by simple majority, and become binding to all WHO Member States, unless a state has rejected or make reservations to them within predefined timeframes (Articles 21 and 22, WHO Constitution; Rule 72, Rules of procedures of the World Health Assembly).
· Amendments are passed by simple majority.[3]
· The current draft of the IHR Amendments would allow the Director-General of WHO or Regional Directors to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)[4] , or the potential for one, without meeting any specific criteria[5] (Article 12). The WHO would then assume management of the PHEIC and issue binding directives[6] to concerned States.
1. PHEICS and potential PHEICs could be declared without the agreement of the concerned State or States.
2. WHO's unelected officials (Director-General, Regional Directors, technical staff) could dictate measures including quarantines, testing and vaccination requirements, lockdowns, border closures, etc.
· WHO officials would not be accountable for their decisions.
· Proposed Article 3 removes rights that have been intrinsic to the IHRs until now.
Removed
are basic rights under international law.
Struck from the 2005 IHRs is the crucial guarantee of human rights as a
foundation of public health: "The
implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for
the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons..."
This has been replaced with the following legally meaningless phrase: "based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence..."
· Among many egregious proposals, one example encapsulates the extraordinary nature of what is being proposed. Proposed article 43.4 notes that the WHO could ban the use of certain medications[7] or other measures during a pandemic, since its 'recommendations' would be binding:
"WHO shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned to modify or rescind the application of the additional health measures in case of finding such measures as disproportionate or excessive. The Director General shall convene an Emergency Committee for the purposes of this paragraph."
· States' obligations [8] in the proposed Amendments would include:
1. Conducting extensive biological surveillance of microorganisms and people (Article 5);
2. Monitoring mainstream and social media and to censor “false and unreliable information” regarding WHO-designated public health threats (Article 44.1(h)(new));
3. Providing medical supplies for use by other States as determined by the WHO[9] (New Article 13A);
4. Giving up intellectual property for use by other States or third parties[10] (New Article 13A);
5. Transferring genetic sequence data for "pathogens capable of causing pandemics and epidemics or other high-risk situations" to other Nations or third parties, despite the risks this entails (Article 44.1(f) (new)).
· The engagement of WHO with non-State actors (non-governmental organizations, private sector, philanthropic foundations, and academic foundations) is foreseen in multiple proposals, raising enormous concerns about conflict of interest (Articles 12.New 7, 13.New 7, New 13A.7).
· It is expected that to implement these proposals, WHO will require a massive increase in its budget.
· The role of the WHO will change from assisting Nations to manage public health challenges on request, to becoming the manager of a massive network of bio-surveillance activities and becoming the enforcer[11] of its public health policies.
[1] https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf
[2] https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
My talk is #17 on Day 2. It is nearly 17 minutes long (was supposed to be 20 but got told to stop at 15, so had to speed it up at the end). Go to the website below, scroll down to page 2, then use the right arrow and keep clicking to get to the talks you want to hear.
In future the organizers should post the talks individually so it is easier to choose those you wish to hear. I have posted my slides below.
https://www.internationalcovidsummit.com/
After years of pondering, this is what I think. Natural origin was CRITICAL to the entire global takeover
I will show you some old slides and some I just made. If there are missing pieces or you don’t follow my reasoning, I am happy to build out the story. Let’s start today with how pandemics due to spillover from animals were to be blamed on climate change, and we had to gain control of climate change in order to prevent more devastating pandemics.
If they come from labs, this carefully constructed narrative falls apart and climate change is not so dangerous after all.
Great photo of a little bat, below. I’d love one for Halloween.
Note that David Morens and Jeffrey Taubenberger are two of Fauci’s top guys. Morens recently got in trouble for telling us how he avoided giving up documents to FOIA requestors by wiping them and using his private email address for business.
David Morens coauthored this article as well:
Meryl Nass, MD
First, it should be noted that the names used for this document change with each draft, which is very confusing. The current draft omits the term CA+, and is titled:
Negotiating
Text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument
on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response(WHO Pandemic Agreement)Advanced unedited version - 16 October 2023
This document is very similar to the June 2 "Bureau Draft" of the Treaty.
It needs to be understood that this treaty is based on fantasy, as none of its foundational assumptions is accurate. The Pandemic Treaty intends to create a complicated managerial structure with a new WHO Secretariat and Conference of the Parties to perform activities that have never been shown to prevent or respond to pandemics effectively or provide any other benefits. In fact, these efforts are most likely to increase pandemics and encourage the use of hasty regulatory structures and problematic, liability-waived drugs and vaccines produced too quickly.
All the Pandemic Treaty drafts so far rely on a set of incorrect assumptions. They include the following:
· The WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health.
· International spread of disease demands the widest international cooperation, ignoring the fact that international spread may be limited to only a few countries and will demand a different level of response, depending on the circumstances.
· Nations retain national sovereignty through their ability to pass health laws, while they will simultaneously be bound and accountable to obey the directives from the WHO on health.
· We were unprepared for COVID and this caused the pandemic's suffering, but now we know how to prepare for pandemics and simply need a central authority to direct us.
· Lack of equity led to failure to share drugs, vaccines, PPE--ignoring the fact that no nation had sufficient PPE or tests early in the pandemic, and that it was nations withholding generic drugs from their populations, not lack of equity causing many treatment shortages.
· Pandemics invariably arise at the animal-human interface, are natural in origin, and the vaguely defined "One Health approach" can prevent or detect them early.
· Increasing the capture and study of "potential pandemic pathogens" can be done safely and provide useful pandemic products, when neither has been true in the past.
· Pharmaceutical manufacturers will agree to give up some intellectual property rights. In fact, a Pharma manufacturers' association said this week it would prefer no treaty to this one.[1]
· The UN adopted a declaration on pandemic preparedness on September 20, 2023. In fact, 11 countries objected and the declaration was only approved by the UN Secretary-General.
· Censorship of "infodemics" is legal and desirable.
· Nations and the WHO must apply the "One Health approach," which includes efforts related to climate change and sustainable development, for health promotion.
· Health "coverage" (insurance) will provide the world's citizens access to a broad range of health care.
Here are some specific examples of what is wrong with the Treaty.
Article 3, #2. Sovereignty
"States have, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies."
This language fails to address the issue of the WHO assuming sovereignty for health matters over states through this treaty.
Article 3, #3. Equity
"Equity includes the unhindered, fair, equitable and timely access to safe, effective, quality and affordable pandemic – related products and services, information, pandemic – related technologies and social protection."
However, Article 9, #2 (d) states that parties shall promote "infodemic management," and infodemic is defined in Article 1(c) as false or misleading information. Article 18, #1 instructs the Parties to "combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation..." In earlier drafts the WHO spelled out that only the WHO's public health narrative would be allowed to spread.
Article 4, #3. Pandemic prevention and public health surveillance
"The Parties shall cooperate with the support of the WHO Secretariat to strengthen and maintain public health laboratory and diagnostic capacities, especially with respect to the capacity to perform genetic sequencing, data science to assess the risk of detected pathogens and to safely handle samples containing pathogens and the use of related digital tools."
While this language is more spare than in previous drafts, it does direct nations to perform genetic sequencing of potential pandemic pathogens (i.e., biological warfare agents) they find and to safely handle them, which requires high containment (BSL3/4) laboratories. Also in Article 4 is the need to "develop, strengthen and maintain the capacity to (i) detect, identify and characterize pathogens presenting significant risks..." indicating the directive for nations to perform surveillance to seek out such pathogens.
Article 6, #4. Preparedness, Readiness and Resilience
"The Parties shall establish, building on existing arrangements as appropriate, genomics, risk assessment, and laboratory networks in order to conduct surveillance and sharing of emerging pathogens with pandemic potential, with such sharing pursuant to the terms and modalities established in Article 12."
Article 1 (h) defined "pathogen with pandemic potential" as any pathogen that has been identified to infect humans and that is potentially highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making it likely to cause significant morbidity and or mortality in humans." Why does the WHO require nations to go out and find potential pandemic pathogens (a.k.a. biological warfare agents) and supply both samples and their sequences to the WHO, where they will be shared with pharmaceutical companies, research centers and academic institutions, as well as possible others and online?
Article 8, #3. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews
"The parties shall, building on existing tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system."
Yet 4 different monitoring systems have been used to gauge nations' readiness for pandemics and all 4 failed to predict how well they would do when COVID appeared. There is no acknowledgement of the failures of our assessment tools, nor discussion of whether there exist any useful assessment tools.[2] [3] And this begs the question why, if our means of assessing progress against pandemics failed, do we think that similar efforts are likely to be successful in future?
Article 10, #1 (d). Sustainable production
"The Parties encourage entities, including manufacturers within their respective jurisdictions, in particular those that receive significant public financing, to grant, subject to any existing licensing restrictions, on mutually agreed terms, non-exclusive royalty-free licenses to any manufacturers, particularly from developing countries, to use their intellectual property and other protected substances, products, technology, know-how, information and knowledge used in the process of pandemic – related product development and production, in particular for pre- pandemic and pandemic diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for use in agreed developing countries."
This and related sections are probably what make the pharma organization so upset with the Treaty.
Article 12, #4 (a) i (2) Access and benefit-sharing
"upload the genetic sequence of such WHO PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefits System) material to one or more publicly accessible databases of its choice, provided that the database has put in place an appropriate arrangement with respect to WHO PABS material."
There is additional discussion about the sharing of pathogens and the need to identify and upload their genetic sequences online where they will be accessible. This could also be called proliferation of biological weapons agents, which is generally considered a crime. In the US, "Select Agents" are those designated to have pandemic potential, and the select agent program[4] is managed by CDC and USDA. For safety, CDC must give permission to transfer select agents. Yet the select agent rules are ignored in this WHO Treaty. And in an apparent effort to handwave over existing rules, the drafts says in Article 12, #8,
"The Parties shall ensure that such a system is consistent with, supportive of, and does not run counter to, the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol thereto. The WHO PABS system will provide certainty and legal clarity to the providers and users of WHO PABS materials."
Article 13, #3 (e). Global Supply Chain and Logistics
"The terms of the WHO SCL Network shall include: facilitating the negotiation and agreement of advance purchase commitments and procurement contracts for pandemic-related products."
Advance purchase commitments are contracts that obligate nations to buy products for pandemics in advance, sight unseen. Neither the manufacturer nor the nation knows what is coming, but once WHO issues a pandemic declaration, the contracts are activated and the US government will have to buy what the manufacturer produces. The 2009 swine flu pandemic provides a useful example. Advance purchase commitments led to tens of $ billions in vaccine purchases in North America and Europe for a flu that was less severe than normal. The GSK Pandemrix brand of vaccine led to over 1300 cases of severe narcolepsy, primarily in adolescents.[5] Rapid production of vaccines for which profits are guaranteed and liability is waived has never been a win for the consumer.
Article 14. Regulatory Strengthening
Nations are to harmonize their regulatory requirements, expedite approvals and authorizations and ensure the legal framework in place to support emergency approvals. This incentivizes a race to the bottom of drug and vaccine approval standards, particularly during emergencies.
[1] https://www.ifpma.org/news/innovative-pharmaceutical-industry-statement-on-draft-who-pandemic-treaty-we-need-to-preserve-what-went-well-and-address-what-went-wrong/ "As the body representing the global innovative pharmaceutical industry in official relations with the United Nations, IFPMA has issued the following statement in response. IFPMA Director General, Thomas Cueni said on October 17, 2023:
"It would be better to have no pandemic treaty than a bad pandemic treaty, which the draft circulated to member states clearly represents."'
[2] WHO Report: Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme.
Interim report on WHO’s response to COVID-19 January-April 2020.
"The IOAC sees no clear relation between JEE scores and country preparedness and response to COVID-19, suggesting that existing metrics for public health preparedness and health care capacity do not reflect the full range of variables that affect a country’s response during a severe pandemic on a massive scale. The majority of countries appeared ill-prepared and struggled to implement public health measures in response to COVID-19. In the light of this pandemic, the IOAC recommends that Member States and the WHO Secretariat 6 review the IHR core capacities and existing tools and framework for national and international preparedness, and consider whether they need to be updated."
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9111134/
[4] https://www.selectagents.gov/
[5] https://www.science.org/content/article/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy
