Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

WHO Pandemic Agreement ⏤ WHO is really in charge?

By  Dr Lisa Hutchinson | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 6, 2025 

On 15 April 2025, as we approached Easter, the not so joyous news broke that member states have now reached an agreement on the WHO Pandemic Agreement or Treaty, with negotiations expected to be formalized in May (17-26) when each member state can then decide whether or not to sign the agreement. Notably, this Treaty has gone ahead without the inclusion of countries such as Argentina and also the United States. It is now well known that President Trump signed an Executive Order to pull the USA out of the agreement owing to the ‘mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic’ and concerns of China’s ‘inappropriate political influence’. Moreover, federal health officials are also prevented from contributing to talks with WHO, due to concerns it is a harmful organization. So what does this WHO Pandemic Agreement mean for the UK and the rest of the world?

Anne-Claire Amprou, a co-chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, has claimed that this is a “major step forward in protecting populations, the response will be faster, more effective and more equitable” and will bolster “equity and international security.” She continues by noting that “nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or proscribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travelers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.” However, many more skeptical followers of the Agreement, such as James Ruguski, indicate that this represents a Framework Convention to usher in a global pharmaceutical power grab dressed up as ‘health equity’ under the guise of ending ‘vaccine apartheid’. The fact that governments worldwide have bypassed normal safety protocols during ‘health emergencies’ sets a dangerous precedent for a totalitarian approach to a one world governance.

The latest agreement on the WHO Pandemic Agreement refers to pandemic-related health products in response to pandemic emergencies. Of note, these health products include “medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment, decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell- and gene-based therapies, and other health technologies”. The agreement continues to elaborate on the fact that a “coordinating financial Mechanism is hereby established to promote sustainable financing for the implementation of this Agreement”. In other words, this will expand the capacities around pandemic prevention and preparedness and response using the above mentioned coordinated financial mechanism to serve the implementation of this Agreement. James Roguski defines the acronym PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) in reality as a Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex!

In his Substack, James Ruduski explains the main aspects of the Pandemic Treaty:

  1. This is really Corporate Wealth Redistribution Disguised as Health – as this represents a Framework Convention that benefits Big Pharma;
  2. A behind the scenes peak at the Conference of Parties (COP) reveals what the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) scheme does, which gives authority to a government official so they can deem if a countermeasure is required;
  3. Emergency Powers and the PREP Act is another way that governments take control by bypassing normal safety protocols during declared ‘emergencies’ and sets a dangerous precedent;
  4. Vaccines are being developed with self-amplifying mRNA technology for new emerging ‘threats’ such as bird flu, H5N1 and the role of regulatory oversight in this regard;
  5. This reveals biosecurity theatres in which the WHO is given authority over logistics, manufacturing and flow of money for the PREP Act.

Although the World Health Assembly has reached an agreement for the WHO Pandemic Treaty which will be put forward for adoption in mid-May, the international agreements are not legally binding. However, where it becomes problematic for UK citizens is that a section within the agreement based on the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] ⏤ an ironic date given George Orwell’s book “Nineteen Eighty Four” ⏤ empowers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to adopt or embrace any “international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of an infection or contamination”. While advocates of the WHO Pandemic Agreement opine that it respects national sovereignty, it is also subject to “Obligations under International Law” ⏤ an oxymoron by any standards. Disturbingly, the language of the Agreement also includes emergencies owing to climate change!

The WHO’s One Health initiative integrates human, animal and environmental health across the organization, and includes collaborations with the usual culprits, such as the United Nations (UN) that has created the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH). Censorship is also notable in this WHO Agreement document with references to the importance of “building trust and ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatisation.” Most people are unaware that mandates relating to health are illegal. People should not have to comply with health mandates that are not aligned with their beliefs. Human rights educators and justice advocates have pointed out that individuals are more empowered than they realise but resilience is largely something people do not enact as they are unaware of their true legal rights.

British citizens should ignore these international agreements and treaties and focus on repealing section 45 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984]. A recent post on platform X by Weston A. Price Foundation, London Chapter, explains how repealing section 45 of the 1984 Public Health Act will ensure we can effect how we are governed, as this can only be affected by statutes. Moreover, the 1688 Bill of Rights confirms that no treaty or government proclamation can change our laws: “That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.”

These agreements are really about taking money from wealthy nations, via the WHO, to fund and further extend the powers of Big Pharma around the world. The WHO Pandemic Agreement can enable future public health emergency provisions or pandemic-related unapproved therapies to be rolled out globally in circumstances of another health threat. The Pandemic Agreement allows an increase in the supply chain (for medicines, vaccines, and hospital protocols) that may inflict untold damage. People’s individual rights should never be usurped by government ⏤ even in a health emergency situation. The pandemic and PREP Act enabled engineered emergencies to be initiated so that the 4th Industrial Complex architects could profit from such measures. A compliant population kept in a state of perpetual fear relinquishes power too readily. We need to protect ourselves from manipulation by authorities with too much power. The deadline for member nations to reject the amendments to the International Health Regulations is rapidly approaching: July 19, 2025. But our Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, is likely to agree the terms when he attends the World Health Assembly in Geneva on 19th May, well ahead of the rejection deadline.

James Roguski summarises: 10 reasons to reject the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

1. Lack of Public Discussion/Debate ⏤ public debate and discussion has been almost non-existent;

2. Pandemic Related Products ⏤ the proposed Pandemic Agreement is not about health, rather, it is a redistribution of wealth under the guise of ‘equity’;

3. Surveillance ⏤ within the Agreement it states that: “Parties shall take steps through international collaboration, in bilateral, regional and multilateral settings, to progressively strengthen pandemic prevention and surveillance measures and capacities, consistent with the International Health Regulations (2005)”;

4. The One Health Approach ⏤ the Agreement states: “developing, implementing and reviewing relevant national policies and strategies that reflect a One Health approach”. This is a key policy instrument for dealing with global health risks but this has far-reaching implications. The WHO Pandemic Agreement gives the WHO Director-General the ability to issue orders to all nations regarding humans, animals and plant ecosystems when a public health emergency is declared, which overrides nation sovereignty;

5. Massive Expansion of the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex ⏤ with Article 10 stating “sustainable and geographically diversified local production”;

6. The Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) ⏤ the Pandemic Agreement fails to adequately address the issue of gain-of-function research and the proposed PABS would effectively monetize and incentivize the search for “pathogens with pandemic potential”;

7. The Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network ⏤ put simply the WHO should NOT be given the authority to oversee and/or operate a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network;

8. The Financial Coordinating Mechanism ⏤ this aims to bolster the funding of the WHO to actively control the money and supply chains;

9. The Conference of the Parties ⏤ the establishment of a new bureaucracy (the Conference of the Parties) consisting of unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown bureaucrats ⏤ is unlikely to prioritise the people’s best interests in helping to prevent, prepare for, or respond to future ‘pandemics’;

10. Relevant Stakeholders ⏤ includes private corporations but not we the people.

No informed consent or democratic debate has existed during all these negotiations.

Why this matters is that the WHO Pandemic Agreement has:

⏤ Hidden clauses and centralized control

⏤ Potential impacts on national sovereignty

⏤ Your rights during future health crises will be heavily restricted.

Ultimately public private partnerships do not work and we need transparency. The WHO Pandemic Treaty and vaccine experimentation should not be able to happen again and exiting the WHO or not complying with the Pandemic Agreement is one way to oppose this. Hopefully there is a better way to health ⏤ we need to take away power from government and global officials and we need to contact MPs to raise our objections.

Consider signing the petition linked here FINAL VOTE IMMINENT: REJECT the WHO Pandemic Treaty!

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Pharma, WHO Team Up to Create Permanent ‘Pandemic’ Market for Mandated, Experimental Vaccines

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 6, 2024

Big Pharma and its key investors are rolling out a new strategy — “the full takeover of the public sector, specifically the World Health Organization (WHO), and the regulatory system that now holds the entire market hostage” — according to a new investigative report by Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones.

What’s behind the new strategy? The pharmaceutical industry is facing a “patent cliff” by 2030, as many of its blockbuster drugs are set to lose their patent protection, placing $180 billion in sales at risk and threatening to topple the industry.

According to Jones, for years, when patents expired on profitable drugs, pharmaceutical giants deployed a “mergers and acquisitions” strategy, buying up smaller drug companies to add to their product portfolios.

As a result, the industry is now dominated by a handful of companies, conventional chemical drugs exist for most health issues, and the regulatory process for new ones has become onerous.

Big Pharma has now pivoted to acquiring biotech and biologic companies, whose products are “more complex, unpredictable and difficult and expensive to make,” than chemical-based medicine, Jones wrote.

Conventional drugs are chemically synthesized and have a known structure according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biologics come from living humans, animal or microorganism cells, and are technologically altered to target particular proteins or cells in the immune system. The FDA calls biologics “complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.”

As a drug class, biologics offer an appealing solution to the patent cliff problem, because they can’t be easily replicated like generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, producers make “biosimilars,” which unlike genetics can’t simply be interchanged with the original drug during a course of treatment without serious safety risks, according to Jones. And while generics are cheap, biosimilars are still expensive to produce. There also are regulatory hurdles to getting biosimilars to market.

However, Jones wrote, the serious safety issues associated with biologics — the high risk of serious adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, for example — make it difficult for drugmakers to find commercial success in a conventional regulatory environment.

“Luckily for Big Pharma,” Jones wrote, the WHO and its private backers “are pursuing an unprecedented legal process that would cement loopholes that could solve these significant market challenges of at least some biotechnologies.”

Such loopholes made Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — the paradigmatic example of this new strategy — Big Pharma’s highest-selling annual market success ever.

Distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines to approximately 70% of people globally was possible only because of the “fast-tracked, deregulated development and mandated consumption of the experimental drugs,” Jones wrote.

The industry hopes to replicate that model with other drugs. And it has already begun — last month the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, gave Moderna $176 million to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine.

Stakeholders behind the WHO have turned it into an arm of Big Pharma

According to Jones, the process of rapidly developed and mandated experimental drugs was first adopted by the U.S. military for bioweapons threats. Now, it is being internationally legitimized by the WHO through the agency’s revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and its continued attempt to push its pandemic treaty.

The amendments were watered down and the treaty was partially thwarted at the last meeting of the World Health Assembly, which ended on June 1. However, the powers added to the amendments and the language in the treaty WHO and its backers are still hoping to advance next year show the type of biotech pandemic market Big Pharma has in the works.

According to Jones, this market:

“Will not be one that depends on the free will of consumers to opt in and out of products — but instead relies on tactics of forced consumption and manipulation of regulatory paradigms.

“At the forefront of this push are the WHO’s public-private-partners/private stakeholders, who directly shape and benefit from this policy. Their influence has, in effect, turned the WHO into an arm of Big Pharma, one so powerful that it already demonstrated its ability to morph the entire international regulatory process for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

These stakeholders can wield this power in part because the WHO receives 80% of its funding from private stakeholders.

Those stakeholders include private-sector giants like Bill Gates, his public-private partnership organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and public-sector bureaucrats, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright, Ph.D., of BARDA and the Rockefeller Foundation, who have been working for years to create a new system that would speed up vaccine production.

During the COVID-19 pandemic period, even states that lacked legal structures to provide emergency authorization for new drugs created them, using the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EUL) as justification, and aided by the WHO’s COVAX vaccine distribution system. COVAX was co-led by the WHO, Gavi, CEPI and Unicef, which are all backed by Gates.

The goal now, Jones wrote, is to institutionalize the procedures that were put in place globally for COVID-19 to pave the way for a new pandemic market.

The One Health agenda, which requires “full-scale surveillance of the human-animal environment,” both before and during pandemics, is central to this plan, he wrote.

The four pillars of the emerging pandemic market

There are four pillars to the plan for securing this market. The pillars are embodied in the WHO’s recently passed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty.

1. Biosurveillance of “pathogens with pandemic potential”: The WHO is calling on member states to create infrastructure to conduct biosurveillance on entire populations.

WHO private stakeholders, like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been funding such initiatives for years and continue to be at the forefront of similar initiatives today, Jones wrote.

2. Rapid sharing of data and research: Under the IHR amendments, the WHO’s director-general must provide support for member states’ research and development. In the pending treaty, that would include helping them rapidly share data during a pandemic.

Such sharing should help coordinate global pandemic responses and also “pandemic prevention.” That means building a globally coordinated effort to research and share data on diseases that don’t currently pose a public health threat but are allegedly “likely to cause epidemics in the future.”

The WHO’s announcement last week that it is facilitating data-sharing for a new mRNA bird flu vaccine from Argentina is one example.

Experts have raised concerns that incentivizing such “preventive R&D” could incentivize risky gain-of-function research, Jones wrote.

Jones also noted that it is “highly likely” that the same global organizations that partner with the WHO and are funded by its largest private donors will be the ones doing this research and development on vaccines for “future pathogens with pandemic potential” — and also the ones profiting from it.

3. New regulatory pathways: The WHO is developing new regulatory pathways for unapproved medical products to get to market during pandemic emergencies. The IHR amendments are vague on this, Jones wrote, but the proposed language of the treaty aims to speed up emergency authorizations of WHO-recommended investigational “relevant health products.”

The proposed treaty also seeks to compel member countries to take steps to ensure they have the “legal, administrative and financial frameworks in place to support emergency regulatory authorizations for the effective and timely approval of pandemic-related health products during a pandemic.”

4. Global mandates of unapproved products: The final key element in the Big Pharma-WHO plan to pave the way for a new pandemic market is shoring up the global capacity to mandate unapproved medical products.

According to Jones, in July 2023, the WHO adopted the European Union’s (EU) digital COVID-19 passport system, or the “immunity pass” which recorded people’s vaccination records, negative test results or records of previous infections.

“While a digital vaccine passport does not function as a hard mandate in which every citizen of a given population is forced to take a vaccine, it acts as a conditional mandate — one which offers the illusion of choice, but — in reality — restricts the civil liberties of those who do not comply,” Jones wrote.

The 2005 version of the IHR allowed for travel-based mandates that required proof of vaccination to enter countries when there was a public health risk. The new IHR, Jones wrote, expands on this by detailing the kinds of technology that can be used to check such information during future pandemics.

The WHO also is developing its Global Digital Health Certification Network, which expands the EU digital passport system to a global scale. It will digitize vaccination records and health records and will be “interoperable” with existing networks.

While interoperability makes it possible for decentralized data to be shared globally, Jones wrote, “The UN is seeking to impose digital identification as a ‘human right,’ or rather as a condition for accessing other human rights, for the entire global citizenry by 2030, as established in its Sustainable Development Goal 16.9.”

The initiative seeks to provide people with a “trusted, verifiable way” to prove who they are in the physical world and online.

Jones wrote:

“Verification systems of this size will place the right of citizens to do basic activities — like traveling, eating at a restaurant or working their job — in the hands of governments and potentially employers.

“The rights of civilians will be conditional, dictated by data stored in a massive digital hub that is global in its sharing abilities. Not only will domestic governments have access to the health information of their own citizens under this system, but an entire global bureaucracy will as well.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | 1 Comment