WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]
It’s almost crunch time for the currently negotiated WHO Pandemic Agreement1. Consequently, let’s see what’s changed relative to the March edition.
I covered the March, 2024 draft previously. I do however have some 36 unfinished substack drafts, and wasn’t really considering adding yet another new post. Ergo, let’s focus on the topic at hand, and little else.
What does the document contain, and what’s changed?
The PREFACE repeatedly hammers home that the WHO is the ultimate authority on all things health, and that using the broadest possible definition of that word. In terms of disease, communicable ones are explicitly mentioned, but the phrasing does not exclude non-communicable meaning they reserve the right to lock you down because of alleged poor quality of air, making you asthmatic.
The international spread of disease is considered a global threat, and demand global collaboration, in a coordinated and comprehensive way. Predictable resources are required for this purpose, global inequalities are a highlighted ‘deep concern’, and this calls for a whole-of-society approach, meaning that every person and nation simply must pretend that the 2020 Scamdemic was real, and that the ‘science’ wasn’t fraud, through and through, and place their misguided trust once again in Tedros, as his ‘stakeholder’ buddies indicate for him to lock us all down again. And naturally - this all calls for a One Health Approach. More on that in a minute.
National governments are expected to live up to contextual international legislation, yet repeatedly stress the principles of ‘sovereignty’, including biological material.
Ultimately, this must lead to Universal Health Coverage through a ‘primary healthcare approach’, trust must be built, along with ‘timely sharing of information’ allegedly to prevent ‘misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization’, which of course would be grand, considering their reputation at this stage… quite simply does not exist.
Intellectual property provisions are included, ensuring middle-men will be enriched through technology transfers, and we see the Determinants of Health (derivatives of health aka NOT health) casually lobbed in, expressly because the plan ultimately is to create a global surveillance society, where everything and everyone is judged through N-dimensional vectors of weights.
Finally, climate alarmism is added to the mix, along with One Health favourite - Antimicrobial Resistance.
What changed? The current preface has been vastly expanded relative to the March edition, which largely only concentrated on health (in its broadest sense), pandemics, One Health, and IP.
Article 1 starts by defining the One Health Approach (‘balancing’ humans with the environment), the PABS biological database, safe and effective vaccines, plus the standard, absurdly broad definition of ‘pathogen with pandemic potential’. Finally, a mention of the Universal Health Coverage, which they are so desperate to roll out as it concentrates power at the top.
What’s changed? A few terms were removed, relating to genetics. Nothing significant.
Article 2 includes a sneaky 2nd point which I only caught after marking up the document; ‘the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement apply both during and between pandemics, unless otherwise specified‘, meaning the powers granted are in effect universal. Whether a pandemic is called or not, matters not.
What’s changed? See above.
Article 3 kicks off by declaring that states are sovereign, and that these are expected to uphold the dignity, human rights, and freedoms of each person, with full respect of international humanitarian law. It carries on, stating that equity - not health - is a goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, which is a somewhat interesting statement. Because that could hypothetically mean that the document isn’t really about individual health at all, but rather about brutally suppressing those who are doing relatively better than others in the name of ‘equity’, in a traditional Marxist fashion. This phrasing is absolutely ripe for abuse.
It follows, paying lip service to ‘transparency’ (ie, none), ‘accountability’ (ie, yours, and that of dissenting governments), all to achieve the ‘common interest’ (theirs, not yours), and all using the recently fabricated ‘best available scientific consensus’ as the basis of health decisions - which we found in only the prior paragraph to center around ‘equity’.
What’s changed? In fairness, not a whole lot.
Article 4 lists the many exciting way they will surveil you, the water you drink, AMR and claims of zoonotic spillover, but also includes routine immunisation, and lab accidents. But we also have the interesting claim that environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic, and economic factors drive pandemics, and consequently, your definitely-not-representative representatives should legislate against you, at both national and international levels - in spite of claimed ‘sovereignty’. Furthermore, the COP may adopt additional guidelines or recommendations, as and when it should suit them.
What’s changed? A primary difference is that the March edition used the phrasing ‘implement active infection prevention and control’ as opposed to ‘routine immunisation’. In other words, said ‘active’ measures covered for vaccines.
Article 5 is on One Health, which should be fully integrated (especially the surveillance component) into national policies, include education and training, and be drafted to consider ‘protect human, animal and plant health’ and with support from ‘WHO and other relevant international organizations‘, whose inclusion I’m pretty damn certain you won’t get to vote on. Finally, it adds a new ‘instrument’ outlining the One Health Approach, which will be ‘operational by 31 May, 2026’.
What’s changed? Explicit wording now hints at humans being of less importance than ecosystems, especially considering the statement in the preface relate to balancing. And further, this new ‘instrument’ will so obviously be added as some appendix down the line, which should quite frankly provide sufficient reason to defund the WHO altogether, immediately raid their offices, and prosecute every politician voting in favour for acts of treason. This inclusion is nothing short of a blank cheque and - mark my words - this will absolutely be exploited to hell and back.
And if you think this is hyperbole, check out this 2024 document, courtesy of the OHCHR2 on ‘The Right to a Healthy Environment’ -
'... the right also guarantees environments that are ecologically healthy, regardless of direct impacts on people.'
Article 6 is on resilient health systems, which naturally call for primary healthcare, and hence, Universal Health Coverage. It loops in using social science for obvious sakes of manipulation, and further adds the inclusion of ‘international data standards’ meaning their global surveillance is compatible throughout. And finally - they will develop a central monitoring system at the WHO headquarters. All that surveillance information will sure come in handy, and this will be shared with ‘relevant organisations’.
What’s changed? First off, in the prior edition, it was a ‘progressive realisation of UHC’. I guess they decided to accelerate the plan. Further, where they in the March document made mention of the ‘health information systems’ they clearly decided to scrap that, and just focus on ‘an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system‘, which ‘shall be developed, implemented and regularly assessed, by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations‘, thus allowing their billionaire backers full access to your health surveillance information gathered through, say, EO4HEALTH3.
This is the second article which should - in no uncertain terms - serve as absolutely legit grounds to level the World Health Organisation organisation with the ground - promptly. This can - and will - so obviously be abused to hell and back. It’s global surveillance on steroids, and they’ve pushed for this since 1968 at that Biosphere Conference.
Article 7 relates to senior corruptee, John Kerry, and his similarly corrupt daughter Vanessa’s clear insider deal relating to an international health workforce. What’s of importance here is that educational policies should be aligned globally, ensuring consistent brainwashing throughout the world.
What’s changed? This chapter has been somewhat slimmed down, with terms like ‘mental health’, and ‘human well-being’ going the way of the Dodo. The latter, probably because this document is now actually about conservatin of ecosystems (paid for through your taxes), and not human health at all.
Article 8 is no longer with us. RIP.
What’s changed? This relates to monitoring of their system. It claims this has been integrated with Article Six, but it’s been somewhat watered down.
Article 9 relates to the R&D that we - the taxpayer - must pay for, and which Pfizer, etc, will promptly capitalise on. Sustained funding is demanded, along with technology creating initiatives, with those ‘relevant stakeholders’ finding a way to monetise the efforts. Finally, a global clinical trial network is requested along with technology transfer, ensuring their middle-men get their well-deserved 5% cut of the transaction, involving large sums of taxpayer funding.
What’s changed? The language has been watered down significantly. I guess they realised the inclusion of ‘behavioural science’ as a point of research interest was ill-advised, so they decided to remove it.
Article 10 relates to the production of pandemic related goods. Vaccines, and tests by Abbott Labs, and so forth, which - naturally - the public-private-partnerships should arrange, meaning it’s a transfer of taxes to the billionaire class by and large.
What’s changed? The March edition was more specific, and included ‘long term contracts’, and ‘license pooling’.
Article 11 relates to the transfer of knowledge and technology, and seeks to ‘encourage’ those who were funded through the public purse to hand over licensing rights at a discount, regardless of how ourrageous that is.
What’s changed? Not much. They clearly settled on the most important articles first. Ie, new and innovative ways to rip people off.
Article 12 relates to access and benefit sharing of your genetic material, sampled when you’re forced to take a PCR test to ensure you don’t suffer from… er, whatever it’s capable of detecting, like… um… an ice cream brain freeze? This article builds a bridge with the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Nagoya Protocol, and seeks to develop a ‘science-based governance, review, and accountability mechanism’, before adding detail on how to slice up the pie, profiting off of your DNA samples.
And it goes even further, stipulating another exciting forthcoming appendix to be added via the inclusion of a legally binding document, no later than 31 May, 2026.
What’s changed? Oh, you mean apart from the inclusion of technocratic ideals through ‘science-based governance’? Rather a lot, actually, because the ‘accountability’ is there to ensure that the ‘best scientific consensus available’ provides you your marching orders, and finally, what’s not to like about another blank cheque appendix, sure to be exploited to hell and back?
Article 13 is about the global supply chains the WHO seek to roll out, sure to include ‘relevant stakeholders’, not selected in a democratic fashion, yet who will be held ‘accountable’ in much the same way as discussed in Article 12 above. They’re there to implement the plan, not debate it.
But it also includes a small note; ‘During a pandemic, rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian relief personnel, their means of transport, supplies and equipment, and to pandemic-related health products, shall be facilitated in a manner consistent with relevant provisions of international law, including humanitarian law‘ which in no uncertain terms grant those in charge the power to send ‘humanitarian relief’ troops into your nation, should it be under the guise of a ‘pandemic’. 13bis then insists that information relating to purchase agreements should be made publicly available ‘at the earliest possible opportunity’ (ie, never), but ‘exclude confidentiality provisions’ which means that even if they do release a said document, all critical information will be censored regardless. Oh, and finally - ‘avoid having stockpiles’, which can be defined in many, many ways.
What’s changed? These articles were slimmed down, rather a lot in fact, with the prior including provisions on ‘shelf life’, ‘maximum allocations’ and ‘expiration dates’.
Article 14 is on regulatory strengthening, and it outright states that nations should prepare in advance, and legislate against the principles of democracy, so that WHEN the next definitely-not-completely-fake pandemic strikes, they already have the legal powers to, ie, mandate vaccinations, no doubt. Oh yeah, and to ‘support emergency regulatory authorisations’, which I guess is where CEPI’s 100 day4 promise enters the frame.
What’s changed? The March edition was somewhat lengthier, and more specific - with ‘systems which provided oversight‘ a notable absentee in the current revision.
Articles 15 and 16 were integrated with 13 and 19, respectively.
What’s changed? The phrasing on liability opened up for the possibility of the private paying for vaccine damages. It would - surprisingly - appear this line is a casualty in the most recent update. But international collaboration does appear to - largely - be integrated with Article 19 in the current.
Article 17 relates to the whole-of-society approach, which I previously pointed out made complete sense if the objective was to roll out a Marxist General Systems Theory state of total tyranny, involving only ‘relevant stakeholders’ in decision taking.
What’s changed? Not much.
Article 18 is on communication and public awareness, which promise to ‘strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy’, which given out experience during the scamdemic means they will absolutely lie about everything in their brainwashing material.
What’s changed? Some phrasing on misinformation, and the ‘best available science’. Beyond that - not much.
Article 19 relates to financial agreements, transfer of technology, and the cooperation with those ‘stakeholders’ exclusive of your interests.
What’s changed? Nothing of importance.
Article 20 is on sustainable financing. It outlines that you, western taxpayer, must pay domestic agencies, pay third world agencies, and pay multilateral agencies, and then watch helplessly as those multilaterals lose it all through innovative funding mechanisms like blended finance initiatives, intended to defraud the taxpayer. Further, a coordinating fund is hereby established, controlled by the COP, and which should leverage what is so obviously ‘philanthropic’ capital from ‘relevant’ stakeholders, some of whom may or may not have donated billions to the WHO.
What’s changed? The March edition has further detail. The fund relates to the PABS system above, but no implicit mention of the foundation class appears to exist in that reversion.
Article 21 remains largely the same, as does subsequent chapters. This one is on the Conference of the Parties, which will essentially do to health (in the broadest sense) what the UNFCCC COP did to democratic debate on all things ‘climate change’. Ie, it will gut it, through and through, enabling a massive transfer of sovereign power to said COP. This article alone should be sufficient cause for outright rejection of this treaty, and the organisation as a whole.
Article 22 outlines that each member nation has one vote, Article 23 states that periodic reports must be submitted to the secretariat, and Article 24 adds that the WHO will provide the secretariat for said COP.
Settlements of disputes will take place through no doubt a one-sided arbitration panel per Article 25, and Article 26 reminds us all that there are other ‘framework agreements’ in place already, before Article 27 ludicrously adds that you’re allowed to object, unless objections are incompatible with the agreement itself - which should serve as a reminder that these people fundamentally are authoritarians.
Articles 28 and 29 adds declarations, statements, and amendments, all of which fall under the purview of the COP, and votes require a three-quarters majority.
Article 30 outright states that annexes will be proposed, adopted, and integrated within the framework agreement - typically making these a great place to hide unpopular legislation.
Article 31 includes that any member can suggest protocols for inclusion before Article 32 details the withdrawal process, outlining that a nation is bound for 2 years before leaving.
Article 33 then adds that the agreement ‘shall be open for signature at the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva, following its adoption by the World Health Assembly at its Seventy-seventh session, from 17 June 2024 to 28 June 2024, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York, from 8 July 2024 to 7 July 2025.‘ - which is convenient, because it gives us the express timeline - and we really don’t have much time.
Article 34 adds the ratification process, Article 35 outlines its entry into force (30 days following signature and ratification), which I guess might suggest they will call some BS scamdemic in the second half of this year.
And finally, Article 36 states that ‘honest Tedros’ shall be the depository, before Article 37 closes the show, by letting people know that the document excitingly is translated into other languages.
Keep up the excellent work!