WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
A World at Risk
Check out the pictures. Check out the date.
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/annual_report.html
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual ... nglish.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ACTIONS FOR LEADERS TO TAKE
Heads of government must commit and invest.
Heads of government in every country must commit to preparedness by implementing their binding obligations under the International Health Regulations (IHR (2005). They must prioritize and dedicate domestic resources and recurrent spending for preparedness as an integral part of national and global security, universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
Countries and regional organizations must lead by example.
G7, G20 and G77 Member States, and regional intergovernmental organizations must follow through on their political and funding commitments for preparedness and agree to routinely monitor progress during their annual meetings.
All countries must build strong systems.
Heads of government must appoint a national high-level coordinator with authority and political accountability to lead whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, and routinely conduct multisectoral simulation exercises to establish and maintain effective preparedness. They must prioritize community involvement in all preparedness efforts, building trust and engaging multiple stakeholders (e.g. legislators; representatives of the human and animal health, security and foreign affairs sectors; the private sector; local leaders; and women and youth).
Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst.
A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.
Financing institutions must link preparedness with economic risk planning.
To mitigate the severe economic impacts of a national or regional epidemic and/or a global pandemic, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank must urgently renew their efforts to integrate preparedness into economic risk and institutional assessments, including the IMF’s next cycle of Article IV consultations with countries and the World Bank’s next Systematic Country Diagnostics for International Development Association (IDA) credits and grants. Funding replenishments of the IDA, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (Global Fund), and Gavi should include explicit commitments regarding preparedness.
Development assistance funders must create incentives and increase funding for preparedness.
Donors, international financing institutions, global funds and philanthropies must increase funding for the poorest and most vulnerable countries through development assistance for health and greater/earlier access to the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund to close financing gaps for their national actions plans for health security as a joint responsibility and a global public good. Member states need to agree to an increase in WHO contributions for the financing of preparedness and response activities and must sustainably fund the WHO Contingency Fund for Emergencies, including the establishment of a replenishment scheme using funding from the revised World Bank Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility.
The United Nations must strengthen coordination mechanisms.
The Secretary General of the United Nations, with WHO and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), must strengthen coordination in different country, health and humanitarian emergency contexts, by ensuring clear United Nations systemwide roles and responsibilities; rapidly resetting preparedness and response strategies during health emergencies; and, enhancing United Nations system leadership for preparedness, including through routine simulation exercises. WHO should introduce an approach to mobilize the wider national, regional and international community at earlier stages of an outbreak, prior to a declaration of an IHR (2005) Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/annual_report.html
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual ... nglish.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ACTIONS FOR LEADERS TO TAKE
Heads of government must commit and invest.
Heads of government in every country must commit to preparedness by implementing their binding obligations under the International Health Regulations (IHR (2005). They must prioritize and dedicate domestic resources and recurrent spending for preparedness as an integral part of national and global security, universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
Countries and regional organizations must lead by example.
G7, G20 and G77 Member States, and regional intergovernmental organizations must follow through on their political and funding commitments for preparedness and agree to routinely monitor progress during their annual meetings.
All countries must build strong systems.
Heads of government must appoint a national high-level coordinator with authority and political accountability to lead whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, and routinely conduct multisectoral simulation exercises to establish and maintain effective preparedness. They must prioritize community involvement in all preparedness efforts, building trust and engaging multiple stakeholders (e.g. legislators; representatives of the human and animal health, security and foreign affairs sectors; the private sector; local leaders; and women and youth).
Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst.
A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.
Financing institutions must link preparedness with economic risk planning.
To mitigate the severe economic impacts of a national or regional epidemic and/or a global pandemic, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank must urgently renew their efforts to integrate preparedness into economic risk and institutional assessments, including the IMF’s next cycle of Article IV consultations with countries and the World Bank’s next Systematic Country Diagnostics for International Development Association (IDA) credits and grants. Funding replenishments of the IDA, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (Global Fund), and Gavi should include explicit commitments regarding preparedness.
Development assistance funders must create incentives and increase funding for preparedness.
Donors, international financing institutions, global funds and philanthropies must increase funding for the poorest and most vulnerable countries through development assistance for health and greater/earlier access to the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund to close financing gaps for their national actions plans for health security as a joint responsibility and a global public good. Member states need to agree to an increase in WHO contributions for the financing of preparedness and response activities and must sustainably fund the WHO Contingency Fund for Emergencies, including the establishment of a replenishment scheme using funding from the revised World Bank Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility.
The United Nations must strengthen coordination mechanisms.
The Secretary General of the United Nations, with WHO and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), must strengthen coordination in different country, health and humanitarian emergency contexts, by ensuring clear United Nations systemwide roles and responsibilities; rapidly resetting preparedness and response strategies during health emergencies; and, enhancing United Nations system leadership for preparedness, including through routine simulation exercises. WHO should introduce an approach to mobilize the wider national, regional and international community at earlier stages of an outbreak, prior to a declaration of an IHR (2005) Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
Should we be worried about this...... probably if the WHO are involved.
In March 2021, a group of world leaders, including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. This initiative was taken to the World Health Organization (WHO) and will be negotiated, drafted, and debated by a newly-established Intergovernmental Negotiation Body.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-9550/
In March 2021, a group of world leaders, including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. This initiative was taken to the World Health Organization (WHO) and will be negotiated, drafted, and debated by a newly-established Intergovernmental Negotiation Body.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-9550/
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
What is the proposed WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty?
I can only judge from my research, but in considering all of this, Remain was supposed to win the Referendum back in 2016. And that not happening majorly put a spanner in the works for the Globalists. So the new WHO Treaty on the back of 'The Great Reset' looks to do what the Referendum failed to do, but it's a private company, so it requires us individually to say 'NO' and carry on saying 'NO' when the UK Parliament, feigning utter incompetence, fails to lift a finger to stop the treaty from becoming binding.
The whole 'Renegotiation then Vote' from David Cameron was a ploy, and the wording of 'Remain' was likely a subliminal to convince us everything would stay the same when in fact the Treaties were due to kick in in 2020 to remove sovereignty from countries so they just become states of the EU. And what happened in 2020, COVID-19 and the Green Pass from Herr Fuhrer Ursula von der Leyen.
This is what the EU was designed to achieve.
Less than a month after the Referendum, the UK was due to take up the six month EU presidency. After the Leave vote, it was cancelled, because clearly whatever we were going to put on the table, it was no longer relevant. Look at this to get an idea on how much of a big deal that was to actually just cancel our presidency.
MEPs outline strategy to strangle Hungary’s EU presidency
MAY 31, 2023
https://www.politico.eu/article/meps-ou ... residency/
If I haven't bored you silly with all that. It seems clear looking at how it came about, it is King Charles's henchmen leading the WHO Pandemic Treaty. Cameron told us what Plan B was going to be if we dared defy him and vote to leave Hotel California.
![Image](https://fakeologist.com/forums2/download/file.php?id=4506&t=1)
UK's Parliament is not going to not give up its power to the WHO, meaning it will absolutely give up its power. Because there are only actors in parliament and they want to play pretend and not be accountable for any of the consequences of their pronouncements. This is exactly what they did when we joined the EU, why would they do any different now.
For them, Life is a Cabaret.
The whole 'Renegotiation then Vote' from David Cameron was a ploy, and the wording of 'Remain' was likely a subliminal to convince us everything would stay the same when in fact the Treaties were due to kick in in 2020 to remove sovereignty from countries so they just become states of the EU. And what happened in 2020, COVID-19 and the Green Pass from Herr Fuhrer Ursula von der Leyen.
This is what the EU was designed to achieve.
EU Constitution: A one page summary
David Noakes
The EU Constitution is a summary of the five EU treaties the Queen has signed since 1972; much of it is already implemented. Rejection by the voters of France and Holland has not slowed it's progress. In summer 2008 the Queen and Parliament will sign a sixth and final illegal EU treaty to complete this constitution in treaty form. It will be their final act of treason. This Constitution will then be fully enforced. Unlike the treaties it is in readable English, and reveals the EU's true nature.
I-6 EU Constitution and law has primacy over member states. Abolishes the British Constitution and Westminster.
I-9-2 Accepts the EU Convention on Protection of Human Rights, but not if it affects the EU's powers.
I-10. We will start with both EU and national citizenship. Yes, the EU is to be a nation in its own right.
I-12 Member states may not compete with the EU's powers ("competencies").
I-12-2 In shared powers, member nations may not exercise power unless the EU allows it.
I-12-4 The EU has power over defence. (Notice the repetitions below - the EU demands military power)
I-13 The EU has absolute power on: customs, rules on the single market, monetary policy, fishing, commerce, and international agreements, eg treaties. (Absolute power = exclusive competencies)
I-15 Members must make their employment, social and economic policies comply with the EU's.
I-16-1 The EU has absolute power over foreign policy, security and defence.
I-16-2 All states shall comply with 16-1. So Westminster has no powers unless the EU grants them.
I-18. If the Constitution forgot powers to achieve its ends, the Council of Ministers shall add them.
The EU will have absolute power; Westminster will have no powers of its own; not even those of a county council, because Britain’s 12 EU regions will report to Brussels. The EU will clearly have the power to close Westminster whenever it so decrees.
I-19 Institutions: The Council of Ministers ("The Council") controls all EU Parliament legislation.
I-20 Maximum 750 EU MPs, (MEPs) five year term. Minimum 6, maximum 96, per State.
I-21 The EU Council, consisting of Heads of State, shall direct the EU and its foreign policy.
I-23 The Council of Ministers, one per state, shall direct legislative and budgetary functions. I-26 The EU Commission is the executive.
I-26-7 The Commission has absolute power. It's only accountability is a censure vote from Parliament.
I-27-1 The Council chooses the President of the Commission, parliament merely ratifies it.
I-27-2 The Council of Ministers appoints Commissioners. Parliament has no say. There is no democracy in the Commission, it is a dictatorship. Only the Commission may propose legislation, MEPs function is merely to push buttons to approve the Commission’s legislation. The EU Parliament, (the only vote we will have left,) is a sham. It's the Soviet system.
I-33 -36 EU laws, decisions and regulations are binding on member states, and enforced by the EU.
I-41 Re-confirms military control. (Formerly French and British nuclear weapons will be controlled by EU dictators.)
I-4I-3 Each nation is to build up its armed forces. They clearly want the EU to be a military power.
I-43 The EU has the power to mobilise the military assets of all States when it declares an emergency.
I-46-4 "The principal of representative democracy" "Political parties at the European level contribute to EU awareness and express the wishes of citizens." Our Lib-Lab-Con parties will be replaced by EU wide parties with names like Party of European Socialists (PES), and European Peoples Party (EPP).
I-47-4 Petitions: One million citizens from many countries (ie with difficulty) may merely invite the Commission to propose that the Constitution be implemented. ie, we can only agree. Soviet style.
I-50. Only the Council sometimes, and Parliament, shall meet in public. (All others meet in secret.)
I-59-3 If there is just a "clear risk" of a State breaching I-2 (Human rights), the EU can suspend that State's rights (including voting), but its obligations to the EU remain. (Designed for abuse!)
I-60 "Any State may decide to withdraw from the EU". But terms will be decided by the Council (they keep our oil, fishing, currency reserves, armed forces and nukes?). Requires agreement by the EU Parliament. Article III-325 3 puts more steps in the way. A qualified majority is 72% of the Council. Like Hungary, we can never leave.
In summary, the EU Constitution is similar to the old Soviet Union’s and builds a dictatorship. It starts with human rights platitudes, then conceals its destruction of democracy in its massive 465 pages; while the EU's Corpus Juris legal system steals our rights. Harmonising our laws with the EU over 33 years has given us the laws of a police state, ready for the EU to enforce. The EU’s 111,000 regulations will control our personal lives more closely than were Soviet Citizens. The EU will become our nation, and as a result Britain will be abolished as a nation.
Less than a month after the Referendum, the UK was due to take up the six month EU presidency. After the Leave vote, it was cancelled, because clearly whatever we were going to put on the table, it was no longer relevant. Look at this to get an idea on how much of a big deal that was to actually just cancel our presidency.
MEPs outline strategy to strangle Hungary’s EU presidency
MAY 31, 2023
https://www.politico.eu/article/meps-ou ... residency/
“It’s about time we start to play hardball,” said Sophie in ‘t Veld, a Dutch MEP from liberal Renew Europe group, at a press conference with four other MEPs of various political families who penned the parliamentary text. The proposal includes ways to “reduce cooperation to the bare minimum” during the Hungarian presidency, she explained.
The remarks came as there is little appetite from national governments gathered in the Council of the EU to block Budapest from taking up its presidency.
European parliamentarians are wary that Hungary could use the six-month mandate to promote policies that go against EU values at a sensitive moment, just after European elections are held in June and when key jobs are being divvied up in EU institutions.
The Parliament’s draft text, to be voted on Thursday, asks the Council to find a “proper solution” or else face “appropriate measures” from Parliament.
Hungary’s Justice Minister Judit Varga dismissed the Parliament’s push as “nonsense” and accused the assembly of ignoring democracy.
“Here the European Parliament has no role to play — there is the unanimous resolution of the Council since many years, which makes the order of presidencies,” Varga told reporters in Brussels on Tuesday.
Even the primary authors of the Parliament proposal conceded there’s no obvious legal route to stop the presidency in its tracks.
“It will be for us to invent now what we can do about this presidency,” said Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, a French Green MEP who helped pen the resolution. “Official texts from the treaties are not very talkative about what we can or cannot do. Even experts that I consulted are not very clear on what can be done,” she conceded at the same press conference on Wednesday.
In ‘t Veld argued the Parliament is “not entirely powerless” if the Council does not adhere to its wishes.
She provided hypothetical situations including giving a platform to government dissidents such as journalists or academics alongside Hungarian government officials at events, and ending participation in the trilogue negotiations where backroom deals are hashed out between the EU institutions — and replacing that with an open vote. “We don’t have to depend on the presidency,” she said at the same press conference.
“We should strip this presidency of all the glitter and glamor: No photo ops, no glitzy press conferences,” she said.
Other MEPs have not given up hope on provoking national governments assembled in the Council into blocking Hungary’s presidency. “I am sick and tired of hearing from the Council that they had a good discussion,” said Dutch Socialists and Democrats MEP Thijs Reuten at the press conference, referring to Hungary’s presidency. “We are way beyond that point, we should act now.”
The motion is likely to sail through the EU assembly as its largest group, the center-right European People’s Party (or EPP — the former home of Orbán’s Fidesz party) is pushing for action. Isabel Wiseler-Lima, an EPP MEP at the press conference, said she was “convinced” the EU treaties allowed suspension of certain rights due to rule-of-law failings.
But other EU lawmakers warned that banning Hungary from holding its presidency could be a legal minefield.
“From a legal point of view, it is not clear how it is possible or feasible to discard … [an EU member country] from the sequence of rotating presidencies,” Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a Spanish MEP, chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties and Justice, and professor of constitutional law, told Playbook.
If I haven't bored you silly with all that. It seems clear looking at how it came about, it is King Charles's henchmen leading the WHO Pandemic Treaty. Cameron told us what Plan B was going to be if we dared defy him and vote to leave Hotel California.
UK's Parliament is not going to not give up its power to the WHO, meaning it will absolutely give up its power. Because there are only actors in parliament and they want to play pretend and not be accountable for any of the consequences of their pronouncements. This is exactly what they did when we joined the EU, why would they do any different now.
For them, Life is a Cabaret.
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: What is the proposed WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty?
Just happened to be sidetracked into something else and I was looking at old blogs. I do like reading things from a decade ago, because it dawns on me how much of what is going on now is just a rinse and repeat. I'll just post it verbatim, because it links to another conspiratard.
The Euro and the EU are in trouble
by Anthony Migchels on April 25, 2010
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/20 ... n-trouble/
Oh look, a financial crash in conjunction with a mass vaccine drive for swine flu. Fancy that.
-------
NOTE, if you were wondering where the Smolensk plane crash 2010 went, it moved to its own thread here:
Smolensk plane crash 2010, Polish President "dead"
The Euro and the EU are in trouble
by Anthony Migchels on April 25, 2010
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/20 ... n-trouble/
So now top Germans are suggesting Greece should leave the Euro. In itself this is not a bad idea, in the sense that Euroland has a major crisis on its hands and a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Getting rid of it should, normally speaking, enhance the strength of the rest.
But it spells disaster for the Eurocrats. The most fundamental reason is that it destroys their strategy of the ‘fait accompli’. It is no mystery why the Euro preceded a political union: at the time mainstream analysts had it that a common currency would have a uniting effect on the peoples of Europe.
But the large scale, long term planners that rule not only Europe had at least one other idea in mind: they knew a crisis of some sorts was inevitable. Financial crises happen all the time, after all. We have been bailing out banks for the better part of the 20th century. There are good reasons to assume that the current Great Depression 2.0 was already in the cards when EMU was created in the nineties. That’s how they work.
Our masters gambled that such a crisis would be a sufficiently good excuse to force fiscal and financial union on an unwilling, but lethargic public.
It is transpiring, that they might have guessed wrong.
It is clear that Merkel and her minions are facing very strong domestic opposition. The package that was agreed upon a few weeks back is being challenged at Karlsruhe (seat of the German ‘Federal Constitutional Court’, the highest in the land) by a quartet of German professors. They aim to at least have the court withhold the transfer of funds until it has reached a verdict. This is too long for Greece, which needs to roll over tens of billions of debt in the coming months.
Merkel is facing a number of major elections in some German Laender. She is not going to win these elections while bailing out the Greeks.
For the Greeks getting out of the Euro is a mixed blessing. They can devalue their to be reestablished Drachme and get their economy back on track. But they will be stuck with Euro denominated debt, which will rise in value if a new Drachme is devalued.
For the Euro it is a disaster losing the Greeks at the first sign of trouble. It shows the end of European (German) loyalty has been reached. It creates the question who is next. It deters all candidates that the Eurocrats want to enlist. It shows the Euro has little resilience for the next, inescapable rounds of this just beginning Credit Crunch. It creates another country that can and will devalue, as Poland did (not only Russia had a great deal to win with the recent ‘accident’ at Smolensk) and show how countries can restart their economies in a normal way. Instead of the despicable, barbarian deflationary methods of the IMF and the Eurocrats.
It shows our masters of long term planning are human after all.
It is the clearest sign yet that the NWO is in crisis. This threatens to be a far bigger debacle than the drive for mass vaccination during the Swine Flu hoax. Which was resisted on a large scale in particularly Europe, even by ‘health’ care professionals.
Finance and currency are at the heart of their domination. And they are now facing, for the first time ever, perhaps, a crisis in confidence in their methods in the very heartland of their power. Forget not, that the ECB is in Frankfurt, home of the Rotschild Dynasty.
A failure of the Euro will have a devastating effect on the plans for more Supra National currencies in Latin America, Asia, North America and Africa.
Of course our masters have survived many setbacks in the past. And the Euro is far from dead yet. But as a wise man once said: we should celebrate all progress.
Oh look, a financial crash in conjunction with a mass vaccine drive for swine flu. Fancy that.
-------
NOTE, if you were wondering where the Smolensk plane crash 2010 went, it moved to its own thread here:
Smolensk plane crash 2010, Polish President "dead"
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: What is the proposed WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty?
More from @_Escapekey_
The October 2023 update to the Pandemic Treaty is not about an illness. It’s an Enabling Act.
The document will yield a new hierarchy of power, titled the Conference of the Parties, which will answer to absolutely no voter.
They will, through subsidiary organisations which they will create as they see fit, control access to surveillance data, while directing future development on the global pandemic plan.
An in the event of a pandemic - which they get to call - they will control financial resources, they can target vaccination drives, and they are completely free to systemically discriminate with complete impunity, without even a shred of an appeals court.
Adoption of the treaty should 'prioritise equity'. No, really - no health. Equity.
Almost as thought this isn’t really about health at all.
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-cont ... t-2023.pdf
Full breakdown over here.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-pa ... y-oct-2023
The October 2023 update to the Pandemic Treaty is not about an illness. It’s an Enabling Act.
The document will yield a new hierarchy of power, titled the Conference of the Parties, which will answer to absolutely no voter.
They will, through subsidiary organisations which they will create as they see fit, control access to surveillance data, while directing future development on the global pandemic plan.
An in the event of a pandemic - which they get to call - they will control financial resources, they can target vaccination drives, and they are completely free to systemically discriminate with complete impunity, without even a shred of an appeals court.
Adoption of the treaty should 'prioritise equity'. No, really - no health. Equity.
Almost as thought this isn’t really about health at all.
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-cont ... t-2023.pdf
Full breakdown over here.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-pa ... y-oct-2023
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-pa ... y-oct-2023
I feel I must point this out.
The Pandemic Treaty - Oct 2023
...First off, the document can be located here. Whether it was released intentionally, or by accident, the document is awful. But if the latter, thank you.
I actually thought it would be a minor modification relative to the prior ‘Zero Draft’, but no. It certainly isn’t. In fact, its honesty - though appreciated - is somewhat overwhelming. Because what it describes is less worried about some claimed illness, and more about how the new structure to drive this initiative should function, plus who should be compensated - and for what.
The document is dated the 16th of October, 2023, and already early on we can see that One Health has received a massive promotion - in the prior edition, this was only stated in Article 18, it’s now Article 5.
And for those wondering - yes, the Determinants of Health are also included, as part of this inclusive drive for surveillance and vaccine equity.
As said, honesty is the key word. Where in the prior it was more muted, this goes straight to the point - surveillance is outlined already in Article 4, One Health continues, and the requirement for a top-down power hierarchy is blatant later on.
----
First, a series of conditions, including the ‘importance’ of the WHO, the objective of the ‘highest attainable standard of health’, the top-down international coordination, the use of Covid-19 lies to further their agenda, the request for ‘equity’ in vaccine access, the all-inclusive whole-of approach with political commitment, importance of questionable zoonotic links and balancing on this account, the construction of health systems, intellectual property rights, and sharing of information with the global database, allegedly to protect us.
Finally, human resources should always be available, and the adoption of the treaty should prioritise equity. No, really - no health. Equity. What a roundabout way of saying this isn’t really about health at all...
I feel I must point this out.
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1720190201002086489
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1720159687478239275
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files ... _21-en.pdfThe future of financing for WHO
15 December 2010
-
As the Sridhar document referenced this document, I thought I should give it a read. And it's bit of a weird one. Because there's a level of desperation about it, mixed with incompetence, and a willingness to prostitute their services to private enterprise which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No pun intended.
-
The short version is that they are short of funds. In fact, they are that short, they contemplate closing country offices, moving from permanent employees to contractors (which allows for quick shedding of staff), being specific about competency (again, allowing quick elimination), consolidation (cost cutting), and clearly change their staff rules (again, allowing for easier dismissal).
And there's an almost desperate begging on page 7, requesting an increase in member (nation) contributions, and a change in national legislation allowing for higher annual increases in said.
However, the document goes off the rails already on page 2. They seek to 'clarify' what their 'core business' involves, and it outlines a range of items, most of which I strongly disagree with - like assessing food safety, the Social Determinants of Health, or even coordination of pandemics.
And some parts are quite illuminating, because while some aspects are certainly up for discussion - like a potential global governance role of the WHO - others are absolutely not - like pandemic planning or their role in outlining regulation and guidelines. Basically, happy to consider grabbing more power, but not letting go.
And the controversial part is that, really, a sizeable proportion of this document is basically a sales pitch to NGOs and Foundations.
The inclusion of 'donors should demand good performance and value for money from all the organizations they support and refrain from creating new partnerships' itself is fairly telling - because genuine philanthropy wouldn't earmark contributions, and consequently, performance would only matter internally. And the 'refrain' note is clearly a veiled request for those organisations to not pull their 'donations'.
Ultimately, the key concern is that a majority of funding comes via 'donations', or more specifically, 'earmarked donations'. Ie, strings-attached contributions, which - clearly - they can't do without.
And you can certainly see how that was ripe for abuse, even if they did include 'without compromising independence' in #43, which I can only imagine is roughly the same 'independence' on display by the ESWI.
Of historic note - this document didn't truly pass, as nations disagreed with the funding aspect, courtesy of private enterprise. What did pass was a watered down version, which didn't really change much.
Fortunately, the philanthropic foundations were able to find a way to work with them anyway. How fortunate for the public, ie, those they seek to protect.
My only question here is - was that the intent? Was the intent to squeeze them into a situation where they couldn't possibly say no?
Or was even that engineered, given that Margaret Chan was in charge at the time.
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1720159687478239275
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpubOccasionally, you bump into rather the extraordinary document. This one is an example.
If you ever heard of Rhodes Scholar Devi Sridhar, it's probably through her fear mongering articles, published by the atrocity more commonly known as The Guardian. She also indirectly partook in SAGE during the scamdemic. I'm sure you catch the drift.
In order to write for the Guardian in the first place, you have to politically be slightly left of Mao, in general, refuse any kind of level-headed discussion, never entertain the other point of view (which would be lending hate a platform), and ensure that you blame the rich every 43 words, or - preferable - less. So it's on this background this article appears... amusing. And conflicted. And - quite possibly - horrifyingly corrupt and agenda driven.
The document is from 2011, and released via Georgetown (yes, them again), and it's titled; 'Reforming the World Health Organisation'
-
I'm just going to quote a rather long section, because it honestly blows my mind.
'The WHO would be more effective by giving voice and representation to key stakeholders, including philanthropies, businesses, public/private partnerships, and civil society. While actively engaging with the private sector, the WHO should also set standards for and ensure compliance of key private partners such as the food, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. At the same time, conflict-of-interest rules for expert committees and contractors require clarity and enforcement.'
Devi here, suggests increasing the influence of NGOs, foundations, and public-private-partnerships. She is actively encouraging transferring even more decision making capacity to Gates, and co.
She also thinks the WHO should be granted control over food standards - which is now taking shape through Codex Planetarius, announced in 2016.
And finally, this was penned at the time where WHO was outed for engaging with big pharma stooges - like ESWI members - in advisory capacity.
-
'Stakeholders demand clarity on how their resources will achieve improved health outcomes as they shift toward results-based financing and performance-based measures'
What Devi here is stating, is that the same bribery schemes, like GAVI paying $20 per child vaccinated during GAVI's 'Decade of Vaccines' (2010-19) should be in general entirely accepted, in order to satisfy 'stakeholder' demands on 'clarity'. This, of course, will allow said 'stakeholders' to be more precise in their demands.
-
'The WHO could take a more active role in regulating for the world’s health on key issues, including counterfeit medicines, alcoholic beverages, food safety, and nutrition. It could be far more engaged and influential in international regimes with powerful health impacts such as trade, intellectual property, arms control, and climate change'
... so, use the power of the WHO to influence not just what you eat and drink, but also emissions, IP, arms, and trade.
-
Almost sounds as though what she actually wants is a WHO with vastly expanded powers and influence, controlled by foundations. Almost.
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
This has got a British Establishment feel about it. They blood love using ARK and it's derivatives.
Surprise! Jordan Peterson's "ARC" was Built for (and by) Billionaires
Here's a few:
And talking about Prince Philip...
Surprise! Jordan Peterson's "ARC" was Built for (and by) Billionaires
There is a new Global Council fronted by Jordan Peterson that promises to save us all from the Woke Dystopian Future. But who is behind it? Can you support this work? To do so, visit: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php
Here's a few:
And talking about Prince Philip...
rachel wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:22 am Summit on Religions and Conservation, 29 April-4 May 1995 - Hosted at Windsor Castle by HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, World Bank mentioned
https://www.onecountry.org/story/religi ... nservation
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/171746 ... 20294?s=20
There are several troubling aspects to the latest WHO Pandemic Treaty Oct 16, 2023 update. It's not just the creation of the Conference of the Parties, which work to separate people even further from levers of power. But the specifics of One Health is also troubling.
‘Reaffirming the importance of multisectoral collaboration at national, regional, and international levels to safeguard human health, detect and prevent health threats at the animal and human interface, zoonotic spill-over and mutations and to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems, in a One Health approach...‘
Loosely translated, it means that the relationship between human and animals - one considered under serious stress, due to human use of land and water - needs balancing. And if our needs affect the ecosystem as a whole, then our footprint will need to come down - translating into either lower standards of living, or far fewer of us.
Article 5 - One Health - states that parties (nations) agree to (5.3) integrate interventions into other legislation, (5.4b) implement a whole-of-society approach, and (5.7) take steps to integrate the labs & global surveillance in line with -
Article 16 - International collaboration and cooperation - 'The Parties shall collaborate and cooperate with competent international and regional intergovernmental organizations and other bodies', where bodies are introduced later, through -
Article 21 - Conference of the Parties - outlining the creation of this organisation (COP), with a purpose of global implementation and maintenance of the Pandemic Plan, and consequently - through One Health - balancing and optimizing ecosystem health.
Article 28 - Amendments - can be proposed by parties to the WHO Pandemic Plan, but adoption is the sole responsibility of the COP. Voting, should consensus fail, means three quarters majority of present and voting parties.
Article 24 - Secretariat - details how the WHO will provide the functions of a thusly declared Secretariat of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which will render administrative duties for the COP, ultimately meaning that the WHO will be in charge of legislative initiation.
And this is similar to how the European Union works, where MEPs do not have the power of legislative initiation, instead resting with the Commission, meaning that even if the entire chamber is in agreement, if the Commission does not allow a vote, it won't become legislation. It's incredibly undemocratic.
The election of Tedros (and Margaret Chan) was marred by accusations of fraud. And Tedros himself is no stranger to accusations thereof, either. Amendments to the WHO Pandemic Treaty could hypothetically be passed on basis of who presents the larger wheelbarrow of dollar bills. And parties (nations) are legally required to implement said amendments.
The COP further at will get to create subsidiary bodies, including (21.9) an Implementation and Compliance Committee, a Panel of Experts providing scientific advise (occupied by the same experts who brought you lockdowns and zoonotic origin claims), and a WHO PABS System Expert Advisory Group, telling you how to interpret the surveillance data accessed through -
Article 12 - Access and benefit-sharing - detailing a created WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System, which will organise and monetise surveillance data gathered, through a (12.4.b) 20% cut of sales of big pharma's resulting vaccines, working on data gathered through -
Article 4 - Pandemic prevention and public health surveillance - integrating Antimicrobial Resistance, animal surveillance, and environmental factors into the (4.5) integrated surveillance comprising of not just the 60+ illnesses currently tracked, but also the Determinants of Health, and - as outlined by the One Health Joint Plan of Action 2022-26 - the food supply, wastewater, water supply, air quality, climate data, and any chemical they deem to be environmentally unsound.
That our elected alleged representatives are even entertaining this debate should frankly tell you all you need to know.
Because this is the blueprint for Planetary Management.
- rachel
- Posts: 3869
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
- Location: Liverpool, England
- Has thanked: 1357 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
I don't know the people involved, so I don't know how official this is. It remains to be seen.
https://x.com/ShabnamPalesaMo/status/17 ... 1013004650
https://x.com/ShabnamPalesaMo/status/17 ... 1013004650
BREAKING - Mexico stands up to the WHO
The letter demands:Proud of everyone involved in this campaign for the last 3 years+
- Reject the amendments to the WHO International Health Regulations.
- Reject the WHO New Pandemic Treaty.
- Call for a prior, broad and open international debate on the proposed amendments to the WHO International Health Regulations and the proposed new Pandemic Treaty from a human rights perspective.
- To carry out a public and informed consultation and debate at the national level on all the implications of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the new Pandemic Treaty with the participation of the public, private and social sectors, related to policy issues and public health measures during the health contingency, making previously accessible to the public in a clear, timely and understandable manner the necessary information to make effective their right to participate in the aforementioned public consultation, through appropriate means, written, electronic or otherwise, taking into consideration all available and updated scientific, medical, clinical and legal information.
- To carry out a public and informed consultation and debate at the national level on all the implications of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and the new pandemic treaty, as well as their relevance and reasonableness based on the evaluation of achievements, failures, challenges and lessons learned at the national and international level that occurred during the COVID19 crisis.
- Strictly and explicitly prohibit gain-of-function research aimed at modifying pathogens to make them more transmissible, more contagious, more virulent or, being viruses of other species, able to infect humans.