The Pandemic Treaty - Oct 2023

This isn't a pandemic plan. It's an enabling act.

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.

-

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 only bothered highlighting one in the above, because it’s by far the most important. It alarms me a great deal. And the reason I previously covered here -

In short, three Manhattan Principles are highly relevant here -

6. Seek opportunities to fully integrate biodiversity conservation perspectives and human needs (including those related to domestic animal health) when developing solutions to infectious disease threats

8. Restrict the mass culling of free-ranging wildlife species for disease control to situations where there is a multidisciplinary, international scientific consensus that a wildlife population poses an urgent, significant threat to human health, food security, or wildlife health more broadly.‘

9. Increase investment in the global human and animal health infrastructure…, vaccine / pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other stakeholders.

Now, let’s just take the line from the Pandemic Treaty update -

‘… 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‘

If we ‘fully integrate conservation perspectives and human needs’, then arguably, we are a mere wildlife species. This argument is further strengthened by the Berlin Principles (also in above link), which entirely does away with any separation between human and animal health outcome. We are one and the same, intricately tied to one another.

I speculated - perhaps alarmingly - that an interpretation could mean ‘using vaccines to cull species which threaten the environment’. And, you know, it ain’t raccoon dogs or bats which are claimed to threaten said environment. So, in that context, would you say my alarmist interpretation is strengthened or weakened by the wording above? Here it is again.

‘sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems, in a One Health approach‘

-

Before starting with the articles, I should really put down a few definitions. Because they’re important. The one golden rule when dealing with Marxists is that they always lie. Always. They will use a phrase or term in public, yet privately, this will mean something rather different. I covered a number of these in the article on the Immunization Agenda 2030 over here -

But there are a few additions -

• Strengthening
  In short, means centralising control/power. Their idea is that an authoritarian approach will give them the flexibility they need.

• Resilience
  As above. Strengthening leads to resilience, per their ideology. It’s as authoritarian as it gets.

• Vulnerable
  Describes anyone who is to them politically expedient to push at present stage. Yes, really. They use people as pawns, and in a game of chess, those are generally expendable. The United Nations push women and children repeatedly for a reason, though generally not the one contextually stated.

-

Article 1 relates to the use of terms. Most are fairly light, but a few deserve mention. Infodemic, because it early on identifies that they have a problem in the handling of information, and ultimately, trust. And being incapable of admitting faults, their response is to double down. It always is. Never mind what that does to trust. To fix the issue of trust, they will censor. They will never, ever, ever in a billion years engage in honest debate.

One Health is also blended in - very early on, in fact. Provides the common narrative about zoonotic disease, never mind this highly likely is magnified by epic fraud for political expedience. But it also mixes in the collective need for nutritious food (and others). The former relates, again, to a cry for authoritarianism, while the latter is a topic for a later day. I promise there’s a reason why it’s included, and it expressly ties in with the SDGs.

Pathogen with Pandemic Potential - see, this is where the slope becomes slippery. Because it’s one thing, having a WHO that seek to distribute information and serve some level of guiding principle. It’s quite another to state its authority of clairvoyant fortune teller, alleging to predict what’s dangerous and what’s not. This all rests upon the bedrock of surveillance, and a global database (history) of information, where said data is stored as easily accessed records. The idea is that, through various samples, surveillance input, they can analyse the data and declare a Pandemic Potential in, say, Laos, after which the WHO will escalate their tiered pandemic alert level. But - without going too much into detail - there are absolutely no clear rules, oversight, nor common logic entering the decisions driving said ‘science’ - especially, as said is delivered by panels employing people of clearly biased nature, often in former capacity of Wellcome or Gates Foundation employment. Even if you agreed with the surveillance - which you should never, ever do- who get to define when a surge of influenza in the population of ducks in Venezuela should cause escalation in the present stage of pandemic preparedness? Never mind if said hasn’t even crossed into humans, because after all - it’s about potential. See how it works? It’s utter unregulated quack science, judged by people with a financial (and political) interest, and should be rejected out of hand.

What does it say about ‘our’ elected politicians that they even entertain this debate?

I really do not say that for no reason. I recently went through the alleged H5N1 ‘pandemic potential’ outbreak in Hong Kong, which led to culling being instrumented as public policy, in addition to animal surveillance and poultry vaccination. All of which were detailed in a document written in 2004.

I recently covered Universal Health Coverage as well. In short, it’s a description of the entire Global Health Security Agenda. It can be taken to mean vaccines, or surveillance, or digital ID. Or all of them, combined. Which, in reality, ultimately is where this all leads.

There’s also a part about WHO PABS Material, but as that’s a new entity later defined, I will cover this later on.

-

Article 2 covers the objective and scope. It’s a short one, but what stands out is that this is about ‘addressing systemic gaps’. What this means is that they will ensure that there’s no escape from their planned utopia.

Article 3 kicks off with typical rhetoric about ‘human rights’ (which they get to define), and ‘fundamental freedoms’ (which they seek to redefine). ‘Sovereigty’ conveniently leaves out internationally binding agreements, ‘equity' now includes social protection, ‘responsibility’ relates to governments following suit and adhering to the treaty, ‘recognition of capacity‘ means the wealthy nations should pay for the full implementation of this treaty, ‘solidarity‘ is typical, meaningless Marxist claptrap, ‘transparency‘ I will return to, ‘accountability’ means nations trying to back out will be prosecuted (whole-of-earth approach), ‘inclusiveness‘ is a backdoor for private enterprise, ‘science and evidence’ is that of Pfizer and Gates, ‘proportionality‘ related to IHR, and you can forget all about ‘privacy and data protection’, because it’ll never be honoured in a trillion years.

Transparency is an interesting one. And it’s one, were I big pharma, I would be worried about. Because it’s the first hint at big pharma not being equal partners in this hierarchy. Reports on sales revenue, prices, units sold and so forth, could logically lead to claims of profiteering and/or special circumstance tax brackets. This, historically, is entirely in line with Nazi Germany during WW2, where private enterprise were mandated to invest 95% of profits into the war machine. No, that isn’t a Godwin as it’s entirely relevant.

-

Article 4 is about surveillance. I’ve written so much on the topic that I recently did an executive summary, simply because I feel my grasp on the topic is fairly tight, and consequently, do not wish to dedicate more of my extremely limited time to it.

Briefly - the article is about surveillance, about ensuring said is recorded via coordinated standards, that the data - including your genetic code - is uploaded to a central server, from where ‘related digital tools’ will be used to fraudulently call a pandemic for political purpose.

What’s somewhat new here is an increased focus on zoonotic spill events - leading to the premise that you need to be locked down because a chicken in Nauru suffers a temporary respiratory problem.

A few further additions - antimicrobial resistance under the guise of One Health was first pushed through by Obama in 2015, ‘inadvertant laboratory release of pathogens’ was censored in 2020 with full backing of these corrupt loons - Jeremy Farrar, ‘sound management of wastes from health facilities’ will be ignored as soon as the ink is dry because it’s ultimately so utterly unimportant in case of a real pandemic, and ‘ensure access to safe water’… is a very odd one. It could hypothetically mean a claimed do-good integration into the surveillance rollout, as it deals with primarily the 3rd world, who might be suspicious of a USAID workforce operating under PEPFAR showing up to install surveillance equipment.

Finally, and not least, the ‘integrated surveillance’ should include animals just as well, due to claimed - and hugely questionable - zoonotic link. I added the H5N1 story above, but the 2003 Hong Kong SARS even was just as sketchy; that relied on a protocol of no-autopsy diagnosis-of-exclusion, and ultimately yielded the ECDC and a Hong Kong equivalent, who both immediately set out to work on surveillance.

Article 5 is reserved for One Health. I’ve spent, at least, 3 months investigating One Health, so feel I have a fairly good understanding of the topic. In fact, I recently highlighted what the difference between Planetary Health and One Health is over here -

Apart from the usual statement that it should be coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative (global, competent, and integrated into things not health), it should also consider zoonotics, and consider the interdependence of animal and man, a word which roughly translate into marxism, and has since 1895.

The reality is that One Health - as outlined by the Manhattan Principles - is about surveillance and vaccines.

-

Article 6 should really be renamed to Universal Healthcare Coverage - because that’s the ultimate objective. It also includes the call for ‘interoperable standards’ to ensure the suveillance data is globally compatible, of ‘interconnected platforms’ so that your genetic material reach the server, from where they can deploy their ‘data science capabilities‘ to call… well, anything they bloody well like. It’s hardly as though you can object. I provided a link further up in this article on this topic.

-

Article 7 pushes the One Health Workforce, no doubt pleasing Vanessa Kerry.

I also previously covered how the workforce is educated, and with what material.

-

Article 8 pushes national planning (based on the WHO template, mandatory in implementation), ‘supply chain management’ which Thierry Breton wants to strengthen aka seize control of, ‘appropriate tabletop exercises’ aka Event 201, all based on WHO plans, ensuring a ‘harmonised’ effort. Finally, a global ‘peer review mechanism’ established by the end of 2026, which I hope can finally answer me the question as to who peer reviewed Neil Ferguson’s source code.

-

Article 9 is supposedly about R&D, but in reality, it’s about rolling out ‘clinical trial networks’, ‘laboratory access’, and ‘infomedic management’ in the third world. And if you find that expression offensive, then perhaps you need to get your priorities straight as it pretty much states that they’ll use the population of the developing world to medically experiment on in the name of vaccine trials.

On it goes with the ‘sharing of information’ to the ‘WHO Global Observatory on Health R&D’, a ‘strengthened international coordination and collaboration on clinical trials’ leading to ‘national policies’. Ie, they will from high up push for more lenient trial procedures, globally.

-

Article 10 claims to be about sustainable products, but in reality, it’s about construction of vaccination plants in the developing world, and related legislative issues - including a call for royalty-free licensing of vaccines, knowledge transfers, and public subsidy of said plants.

-

Article 11 is about ‘technology transfers’, which again should seek to ‘incentivize manufacturers’, and be processed through ‘transfer hubs’, … where a middle man will stand to make a fortune. We’ve seen this script before.

What’s of further interest here is that while the public and governing partners are under a framework of mandatory participation and action, vaccine manufacturers on the other hand are ‘encouraged’ to, well, do nothing at all.

Article 12 supposedly is about ‘Access & benefit sharing’ which is really the first article where we see how these corrupt, greedy authoritarian bastards blatantly seek to divvy up the proceeds.

First off, a WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (WHO PABS) is hereby established, per this agreement, enabling ‘timely sharing of PABS Material’. And you know what that is? It’s the surveillance data they have on you, and everyone else. It’s the samples they took (and plan to take), it’s the claims of ‘new variants’ and so forth - all of which will be provided to their licensed ‘partners’ (aka big pharma) on the express condition that the WHO retain the intellectual rights to your Covid-19 samples. No, really.

But it isn’t free. No, in fact, vaccine manufacturers will need to pay for access to your data, along with a 20% cut of sales. Supposedly, the money goes to a ‘funding mechanism’ for the developing world, but in reality, this will be siphoned by the philantropic foundations.

The WHO PABS system should be operational by the end of May, 2025.

-

Article 13 is about logistics and the global supply chain.

In fact, it’s about the WHO Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (WHO SCL), which is as of this agreement officially established. This, should be guided by equity - ie, not health - and in short, is an exercise in estimating stockpiles, which should at all times be sustained, ensuring a nice payday for big pharma.

The bigger issues in this article include ‘avoid competition‘, which I’m sure someone will attempt to explain away, ‘advance purchase agreements’ allowing Ursula vd Leyen to slip Pfizer another cool 35 billion without oversight, establish a ‘regional purchasing mechanism‘ which will be further used to eliminate competition and hence cause an explosion in price, a vague promise to ‘reduce waste’ which in the face a genuine pandemic and billions of deaths is just absurd, and ‘donation of products’ meaning vaccines to ‘the needs of recipient countries’, no doubt as judged by some impartial capacity like the ESWI.

-

Article 14 relates to ‘regulatory strengthening’, in short calling for expedited trials (CEPI’s 100 days initiative), ‘harmonisation‘ including regulatory requirements, having ‘administrative, legal, and financial frameworks‘ in place for when the chicken in Nauru falls ill, ‘disclose information… in a timely manner’… and yet, when it comes to big pharma, again the wording goes ‘encourage manufacturers to generate relevant data‘. Hey, they pay for access to your data, it’s only fair.

-

Article 15 is about compensation and liability management. This topic has been discussed to hell and back, but in short, your own taxes will compensate for your injury. Big pharma’s punishment might be to donate their novel vaccines to even more potential injury claimants.

-

Article 16 deals with collaboration and cooperation, including with international organisations and ‘other bodies’. As determined by whom, exactly. Oh wait, read on, there might be a structure incoming.

In short it’s about establishing ‘political commitment’, that ‘policy decisions’ will be based on the same science which brought you lockdowns and vaccine mandates during covid, that policies will ‘respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of all people’. Did you catch that? I will return to this in a minute, as this is important. Furthermore, we have the usual ‘equity’ thrown in, plus the ‘encouragement of ceasefire’ when a chicken looks at Tedros the wrong way.

Let me just take that one again. ‘respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of all people‘. Yes, this isn’t about you. It’s about all people. The interdependent people of the world. Some authoritarian has decided that he - or she - has the capacity to dictate what’s best for you as part of the entire group. It’s collectivism, yet again. Clearly, decision making is too hard for you, which is why they have to do it on your behalf. To protect you.

-

Article 17. ‘Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches’. I didn’t highlight the first part, because if you think this will ever be honoured in a billion years, then Boris Johnson has a drinks party he would like to invite you to. This is about compliance. Yours. Further, any claims of ‘multisectoral’ anything should be treated like any claim of ‘holistic approach’ - because they create ample opportunity to push through a radical agenda through the cracks of entirely separate topics. In short, it will become an interpretable matter, which again is one of their favoured games.

As for ‘meaningful engagement of communities‘ this is actually straight up evil, because what they do is to drum up interest in a topic with a minority, and then skew representation and hence votes in their favour. I’ve seen this repeatedly. Claim an alleged injustice vs some supposedly vulnerable group. Overrepresent said group, and job’s a good’n. Anyone dissenting is a mysogynist, cis-gendered, racist transphobe. Never mind how explicitly sexist, racist etc that is, because the rules only apply in one direction.

The few things left of primary interest in this article are ‘mobilizing social capital‘ which means blitzing you full of behavioural science, ‘facilitate the timely allocation of resources‘ which could mean quite literally anything, ‘identify and prioritize populations‘ which is ridiculously open to abuse, ‘promote collaboration with relevant stakeholders‘ meaning their WEF partners, and… ‘shall take the necessary steps to address the social, environmental and economic determinants of health’, … wait.

Let me quote the zero draft in the context of these Determinants.

• ‘Acknowledging the impacts of determinants of health‘

• ‘Reiterating the determination to achieve health equity through resolute action on social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health‘

• ‘Each Party will take steps to address the social, environmental and economic determinants of health‘

Now compare with this - ‘shall take the necessary steps to address the social, environmental and economic determinants of health‘

The SDoH has received a significant upgrade in this revision.

These Determinants, for the record, are about surveillance. The initiative went public in 2008 with the release of Michael Marmot’s WHO Surveillance Marxism pledge, but in reality, you can trace it back to early 90’s EU legislation, in fact, arguably all the way back to 1978, and the Declaration of Alma-Ata.

-

Article 18 relates to communication and public awareness; ‘pandemic literacy‘ if you will. It’s an agreement to ‘strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population’, brought to you by the same people who banned ZeroHedge from Twitter for floating the lab leak story in February, 2020. It’s about ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ - which not even the United Nations can properly define.

-

Article 19 deals with implementation capacity, or more accurately, who pays for the implementation of this in developing world nations. No prize for guessing.

Article 20 is about financing this treaty, and to ‘mobilize financial resources for international cooperation’, and setting up a funding mechanism contributed to by the sovereign nations, plus big pharma for access to your data, plus voluntary contributions and donations from your favourite philanthropes and foundations. Which - as they always do - will come with strings attached. It’s also the first article to hint at the new organisational structure they’re planning, which is next -

-

Article 21 - the Conference of the Parties.

As of the passing of this document, said conference is established. Under its control will be subsidiaries, such as the PABS system (surveillance data), the SCL (supply chains)…. in fact, they reserve the right to ‘establish subsidiary bodies to carry out the work‘ as they see fit. They also reserve the right to ‘collaborate with the United Nations‘, ‘mobilise financial resources’, and even consider ‘other actions’ with the aim of implementing this document.

This Conference will hold meetings immediately before and after regular WHA sessions, in fact, these should be carried out in the same locations, which is pretty convenient should you have an agenda and not wish to disclose it to the public. Extraordinary sessions when and if they see fit, of course.

The Conference will further have the right to modify the WHO Pandemic Agreement as they see fit, including amendments, annexes, and protocols.

And you know which subsidiaries they look to implement? ‘Implementation and Compliance Committee‘ which will be there to ensure no nation steps out of line, a ‘Panel of Experts to provide scientific advice‘ to ensure that nations receive and act upon the ‘best available science’, and a ‘WHO PABS System Expert Advisory Group‘ which will be there to tell you how to interpret the surveillance data.

As for what ‘other actions’ entails… absolutely anything they can think of. It’s a colossal, giant loophole. Oh yeah, and the ECB is prohibited from engaging in QE.

-

Look, I don’t really care if you think I’m a conspiracy theorist — especially in the context of the past 3 years of global scamdemic fraud.

This is a global coup.

Any public servant never mind cooperating, but even entertaining this is not acting in the capacity of those he (or she) is alleged to represent.

I will return to this in the concluding remarks, but we still have 5 pages left of the document to complete.

-

Article 22 relates to the right to vote. Each nation will receive one vote, and we saw with the election of Tedros and Margaret Chan how easy that is to corrupt.

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

A ‘regional economic integration unit’, however, receive the same quantity of votes, as the individual member states otherwise would. Think about this for a second.

What this means is that member states of, say, the European Union, bound by separate legal requirements, will be even further separated from power.

Article 23 relates to reports - information - going TO the Conference of the Parties. Implementing partners - aka nations - should send periodic updates on implementation, plus information on legislative, executives and administrative measures taken to implement the Pandemic Agreement, plus any difficulties encountered.

Naturally all attempts should be made to ‘avoid duplication’, which essentially mean to eliminate any level of verification which would highlight fraud and corruption. And finally, the Conference will also request ‘other information as required by specific provisions in the WHO Pandemic Agreement’. Which could mean absolutely anything.

The Conference, in short, can demand any information, provided they can justify it under a provision, which they, themselves, get to edit. Look, they ‘justified’ surveilling all things not health for sakes of your health, aka the Determinants of Health. This, by comparison, is amateur hour.

-

Article 24 establishes a WHO Pandemic Agreement secretariat, which is under the control of the Conference, and should cooperate and coordinate with the United Nations.

-

Article 25 states that the pandemic agreement is to be guided under the charter of the United Nations, and amusingly not exclude the cooperation between nations, provided that such agreements are compatible under the obligations under the WHO Pandemic Agreement, aka you shall not challenge your one true glorious leader. The absurdity on display here of course is that it indirectly states that you’re allowed to nail your second foot to the floor, provided your first stays nailed as well.

-

Article 26 deals with reservations, of which there are NONE. I suspect this article was inserted for comedy value alone.

Article 27 outlines withdrawal. You cannot bail for two years, after which, a 12-month expiry goes, yet, this doesn’t affect other instruments like the IHR. Consequently, it’ll take a lot longer than that, because those have to be negotiated separately.

Article 28 suggests that any party may propose amendments, but adoption is reserved for by the Conference. In other words, nations have no legislative initiation powers - which for the record is exactly how it works in the European Union. Voting requires three quarters majority (and deep pockets).

-

Article 29 is a peach. Because it’s short, bland, and… leaves out a lot of relevant information.

The objective is detail. At first, the surveillance gathered information related to influenza only. Then came Malaria. Then Tuberculosis. And now, we have 50-100 different illnesses, all requiring constant surveillance. This really is no joke.

Now, anyone not familiar with the system, receiving an update that a modification to annex 11 subsection B paragraphs 7-11 will be discussed in an upcoming meeting might just decide that it’s not worth getting out of bed for. And that’s by intent. Also not helped by there being no requirement for voting.

And that is not saying that I support the structure in itself, I’m merely pointing out how absurdly open to gross abuse that it truly is.

-

Article 30 is about protocols. Same script as before, parties can suggest, but the Conference get to adopt. Three quarters majority. The difference between protocols and amendments appear to be who get to vote, because protocols are voted on by non-member states as well.

-

Article 31 is about the signatorial process.

Article 32 is about ratification.

Article 33 is about entry into force (30 days post signed agreement).

And done.

-

Concluding Remarks

This agreement will yield a new hierarchy of power, which answers to absolutely no voter. At the very top you’ll find the Conference of the Parties, which through a range of subsidiaries will get to control all access to information, while directing future development of the global pandemic plan.

They will get to call the future pandemic, on surveillance data that you will not get to evaluate in an independent capacity. They will get to control the financial resources, and target vaccines to those they dictate are in need. They will get to systemically discriminate against absolutely anyone and everyone as they see fit. And there will be absolutely no oversight in this regard, and no authority to appeal to.

No common man will ever, in a billion years, have any realistic level of impact on future policy as guided by these lunatics with dreams of a global, fascist dictatorship.

Any member of parliament who even honours this discussion is expressly working against the wishes of the common man.

This is not a Pandemic Treaty. It’s an Enabling Act. And last we saw one of those, more than 50 million people lost their lives.