WHO’s international health regulations: A totalitarian charter for the planet
Image: Wikimedia Commons
By Rusere Shoniwa
You can read more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com
In an even half-sane world, people everywhere in positions of authority would be taking stock of the catastrophic health, economic and social outcomes of the global covid response and making plans to move in the exact opposite direction. Instead, in the insane asylum that now passes for planet Earth, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is in the final stages of getting its 194 member states (virtually the entire planet) to sign up to a treaty that will give the WHO the power to legally enforce the madness the world has endured over the past three years on the pretext of saving the planet from the scourge of pandemics.
Apart from human evolutionary adaptations like the need for sunshine and positive social interactions, the idea of a one-size-fits-all medical countermeasure is anathema to any reasonable health practitioner simply because no disease or medical condition progresses in precisely the same way in every individual, region, nation or continent. The last three years of biomedical fascism are proof of that, if proof were ever needed.
Let’s review the WHO’s and every other major public health agency’s scorecard for their response to what amounted to a seasonal respiratory disease of unremarkable lethality.
It is no longer even mildly controversial to acknowledge that lockdowns wreaked havoc on mental health, children’s development, economies and access to health systems. They had no effect whatsoever as a medical countermeasure, and we will be paying the price for this barbaric regression to medieval superstition for years to come.
The science – real science, not covid cult science – had already confirmed before lockdowns that masks do nothing in community settings to curb the spread of respiratory illness. The latest Cochrane review has confirmed what we’ve always known and even the New York Times, a leading high priest of the global mask cult, is hanging its head in shame.
As for the ‘vaccines’ that turned out not to be vaccines, medical experts who have retained their critical faculties and, most importantly, their consciences, are screaming at the top of their lungs about this ongoing crime. Our government cannot bring itself to halt the vaccines for at least two reasons.
First, it would be an admission that their approval was reckless in the extreme. It has now surfaced that the Chief Medical Officer told the Government in February 2020 that it would be unwise to bypass normal safety and efficacy testing to fast track a vaccine because covid was “not deadly enough” to take that kind of risk.
Second, it would rightly be seen as admitting gross negligence at the very least, and that would put a serious dent in the planned war on viruses entailing one manufactured pandemic after another, each ending in ‘vaccine’ splurge costing hundreds of billions of global taxpayers’ money. Our government is a fugitive on the run with two options: keep running or go to jail.
So, while the lockdown and mask cults are in their final death throes, the ‘vaccine’ cult is still putting up a fight. Dr James Thorp, a US Board Certified Obstetrician-Gynaecologist, told Fox News that we are witnessing “the greatest violation of medical ethics in the history of medicine, maybe humanity.” He is not alone, as the UK’s own Aseem Malhotra, one of our most experienced consultant cardiologists, is equally disturbed and has been campaigning for a halt to the ‘vaccines’ for several months now. It’s well-nigh impossible to ignore the link between the tens of thousands of excess deaths and the ‘vaccines’ but that hasn’t stopped the Anything-But-the-Vaccine cult from making a desperate last stand. Like its predecessor cults, its days are numbered.
All of these calamities were vociferously advocated by the WHO. And yet, instead of calling for the total disbanding of the WHO or at least exiting from this global, criminally negligent killing machine, governments across the West are now seeking to perversely reward its global assault on health, freedom and life itself by greatly expanding its authority to do more evil. How so? The WHO is asking its member states to ratify amendments to its existing International Health Regulations (IHR) and to sign up to a new global Pandemic Preparedness Prevention and Response (PPR) treaty (Pandemic treaty).
These changes will grant the WHO legally binding powers to dictate how nations respond to what it determines to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). In the words of Shiraz Akram, a member of the Thinking Coalition, a grass roots pro-liberty organisation, this development “represents an extraordinary change to the political power structures of the world, to which there is no parallel within our lifetime.”
I’ve read both the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty and I’m of the view that Mr Akram’s summation, as arresting as it is, does not begin to capture the potentially horrific consequences of signing up to the WHO’s proposed totalitarian global health governance charter, the precursor to which has been the past three years of covid biomedical fascism.
One way to make sense of the bizarre contradiction embodied in the obtuse determination to legally ratify the catastrophic failure of ludicrous ‘health’ policies over the last three years is to understand that this is an attempt to gaslight the public into swallowing an outrageously Big Lie. The sheer magnitude of the WHO’s (and by extension our own government’s) audacity causes one to pause for thought and ask whether it is our judgement, not theirs, that is wrong. We begin to ask ourselves whether it really is possible that such clever and basically honest people could get it so wrong and have the gall to double down on their error? What sort of awful world are we living in if the people we trusted can betray that trust in such a bare-faced fashion?
This is too scary to deal with. Rather than explore the possibility that large numbers of people in senior positions should be charged with crimes; rather than face the frightening truth that John Lennon succinctly articulated – “our society is run by insane people for insane objectives” – we collectively scramble for less disturbing and more conventional paradigms to rationalise this potentially terrifying betrayal of trust. ‘Health management’ paradigms in which ‘mistakes were made’ or ideological paradigms involving ‘heatmaps’, but which completely ignore the fact that we have created an economic system that rewards psychopathy and that it’s the institutions and oligarchs at the top of the pyramid who are really calling the shots.
To those of us prepared to face the difficult truth about what has happened over the past three years, the mass ‘vaccination’ campaign has been nothing short of a crime against humanity. Not even the corrupt public health authorities responsible for the mess can deny it with conviction because their own data proves it. Sadly, we also must acknowledge that, through the psychopathic lens of Big Pharma executives, the injection of the entire planet with a cheap and dangerous spike protein delivered in a soup of lethal toxins has actually been an unmitigated, rip-roaring financial success. And with the help of its global sponsor and enforcer, the WHO, they’re going to keep trying to ring the cash register for more of that global cash.
The WHO is drawing up the legal framework to grease the wheels of the pandemic industry. Once that paperwork has been signed by your government, every time the WHO blows the pandemic whistle, you’re not going to have much of a say in getting a clot shot or whatever other gene-therapies and medical countermeasures are ‘on offer’ during pandemic season. No doubt you will be politely ‘invited’ to attend your local surgery for the latest jab, but be prepared to be politely starved to death if you politely decline.
But it isn’t all simply about a corrupt global pharmaceutical cartel paying off governments and the media to force us to take their drugs. As horrifying as that is, the scam is bigger than that. Global pharma is just one piece, albeit a chunky one, of a bigger System – the global capitalist corporatocracy – which has gone into totalitarian self-defence mode to manage its collapse.
Of course, to the paid corporate shills in the mainstream media and the pro-Pfizer, pro-war, pro-neo-Nazi, pro-censorship, pro-pronoun, pro-fascist left (and to a lesser extent, the right) across the West, this is all a ‘conspiracy theory’. However, those whose brains have not been addled by oxygen-depriving masks see a consistent pattern of gross negligence and contempt by the authorities for basic common sense. The cumulative effect of these political decisions that are consistently injuring, killing and impoverishing us and which are compounded by a zeal for doubling down on ‘errors’, exclude a naive ‘mistakes-were-made’ explanation.
The collapsing financial ponzi scheme, the War on Viruses, the encroaching digital gulag underpinned by plans for digital ID and CBDCs, proxy wars enriching the military industrial complex and the energy companies, industrial-scale censorship and 15-minute cities cannot be viewed as random coincidences unless you have Swiss cheese for brains. You don’t even need to expend mental energy on joining any dots because these explosions are happening all at once. The concentration of wealth and power that owns the world is marching democracy and freedom out into the courtyard for execution to pave way for the next phase of global capitalism. Towards a neo-feudal system of technocratic and biomedical enslavement that seeks to concentrate all of the world’s wealth and resources even further in the hands of a private-public partnership between government, the corporatocracy and unaccountable supranational policy-making bodies like the WHO, the UN and the Bank for International Settlements.
It is patently obvious that the political leadership in the West is in thrall to the Chinese model of social control. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s Justin Trudeau, Canada’s PM, waxing lyrical about the Chinese polity [0:40 into the recording]:
“There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.”
This is the backdrop against which we must survey the WHO’s IHR amendments and its proposed Pandemic Treaty. Below is a commentary on the key IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty clauses that complement them.
Non-binding advice? Delete that – a legal instrument to end national sovereignty
The original IHR states that the WHO’s recommendations on how member states should manage Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEICs) are “non-binding”. However, in a move to make the IHR legally binding, all references to “non-binding” have been deleted in the proposed amendments.[i] The Pandemic Treaty, which supplements the amendments to the IHR, is explicit on this point. The draft treaty states that “that the instrument [i.e. the treaty] should be legally binding”.[ii] [emphasis added].
The proposed mechanism by which the treaty is to become legally binding on member states is Article 19 of the WHO Constitution to which member states are signatories. This article states that:
“The Health Assembly [the decision making body of the WHO] shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.” [emphasis added]
The totalitarian bureaucrats at the WHO must, however, be credited with a sick sense of humour as the preamble to the draft treaty opens by “reaffirming the principle of sovereignty of States Parties in addressing public health matters”. In reality, there isn’t a single mechanism in the agreement that could possibly be construed as reaffirming the principle of national sovereignty. The purpose of both the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty is to grant the WHO virtual dictatorship in the determination of what constitutes a health crisis and to severely limit the options available to all the nations of the earth in the management of such ‘crises’.
Human rights? Delete that
The original IHR explicitly references the need to respect the “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” when implementing the regulations. This has all been deleted.[iii] It’s a shameless and unequivocal statement of intent about the planned continuation of the denigration of human rights in the new era of ‘pandemics’, which is not surprising given the atrocities committed under the WHO’s advocacy during the height of global covid fascism.
Apart from the obvious protective values espoused by human rights, the only reason we thought we could take these rights seriously was because they were regarded as inalienable, meaning that they cannot be arbitrarily withheld by governing institutions when deemed expedient to do so. The WHO operates under the auspices of the UN, which in 1948 drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in recognition that “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind” would continue ad infinitum unless humanity made a concerted effort to give human rights primacy in international and domestic law. This can only be achieved by putting the basic rights of the individual above that of institutions in recognition of the fact that institutions derive their power from people and that the rights and dignity of people should not be trampled upon by unchecked power. These rights, according to the UN Charter, are therefore correctly characterised as “inalienable”:
It turns out that these rights can be alienated after all, and who better to alienate them than an agency of the same organisation that not only enshrined them on behalf of humanity in 1948 but also correctly stated they were inalienable. No irony there then.
We move confusingly from a deletion of human rights in the IHR amendments to an attempt to pay lip service to them in the Pandemic Treaty. This confusion in the minds of the polite WHO fascists shines a spotlight on the conundrum of navigating the transition from a human rights-based ethos to totalitarianism. The dilemma being: how do you get rid of human rights without saying you’re getting rid of human rights?
The draft Pandemic Treaty dedicates a short article (14) to the protection of human rights, but introduces the notion that they can be restricted, which is of course absurd and completely destroys the essential characteristic of a human right – its inalienability. A human right that can be restricted is not a human right since any dilution of a human right introduces the absurdity that you are human up to a point – a point determined arbitrarily according to the whims and expediencies of pandemic industry management.
Article 14 thus envisages “limitations on human rights” but stipulates that such limitations align with international law.[iv] No doubt international law itself will soon be aligned to the demands of the pandemic industry so that is the first layer of the shifting human rights sand. The next layer of shifting sand is introduced by a requirement to ensure that “any restrictions are non-discriminatory [and] necessary to achieve the public health goal and the least restrictive necessary to protect the health of people”. [emphasis added] The requirement for a restriction of a human right to be non-discriminatory is meaningless from a human rights perspective. Forcing everyone to get vaccinated would indeed be ‘non-discriminatory’ but still a violation of every single human’s right to bodily autonomy.
In short, the Pandemic Treaty double-speak would make the application of human rights discretionary and not absolute. Which of course reduces human rights to a joke. Running alongside this deceitful erosion of human rights is the ubiquitous and equally deceitful trio of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), more of which below.
The resistible rise of equity, diversity and inclusion
The amendments instruct State Parties to implement the IHR on the basis of:
“equity, solidarity as well as and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective level of development of the State Parties.”[v]
While universal human rights seek to protect everyone regardless of their perceived relative status in society, “equity” seeks to correct perceived imbalances in status. In doing so, it grants privileges to one group, the corollary of which can be disenfranchisement of another. The possible permutations of who can be disenfranchised under equity-based diktat are endless and the language to foster this is intentionally ridiculous and unintelligible. The effect is to create a fluid jelly of unintelligible mush in which anything is possible under a new regime of “equity”, “solidarity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities”.[vi] The key EDI pillars of woke-ism are repeated in the Pandemic Treaty’s guiding principles.[vii]
Lest we forget, the preferential parcelling out of privileges to one group during covid resulted in the creation of medical apartheid under which unvaccinated people were absurdly and cruelly excluded from society in order to ‘protect’ those who had been vaccinated. This idiocy is explicitly invoked in the Pandemic Treaty with the moronic statement in clause 8 of article 4 which has the gall to repeat the half-witted slogan that was used during covid to treat people like lepers – “no one is safe until everyone is safe”, ‘safe’ meaning vaccinated.[viii]
The reality of the catastrophic response to covid has demonstrated that the disingenuous attempt to make everyone safe has caused excess death levels in many parts of the world but especially the West, which are entirely unrelated to actual covid and have not seen since the Second World War. For those in the Global South who might be wondering what public health equity could look like using the covid response in the West as an indicator of the future, a preprint paper titled Global COVID-19 Pandemic Outcomes: Dissecting a Failed Strategy has established the following correlations:
- Higher countrywide COVID-19 vaccination rates correlate with higher COVID-19 deaths per country population.
- Higher country healthcare costs per capita correlate with higher COVID-19 deaths per country population.
- Higher annual income per capita correlates with higher COVID-19 deaths per country population.
- Higher countrywide COVID-19 testing correlates with higher COVID-19 deaths per country population.
- Higher country COVID response stringency (mandates, masking, social distancing, curfews, quarantine, business/school closings, banning or limiting public gatherings, lockdowns, travel ban, contact tracing, and PCR testing) correlates with higher COVID-19 deaths per country population.
- Higher countrywide Hydroxychloroquine use correlates with lower COVID-19 deaths per country population.
- Higher countrywide Ivermectin use correlates with lower COVID-19 deaths per country population.
Correlation is not causality, but this is a reasonable starting point for assessing potential predictive patterns. Covid containment policies that correlate with higher death rates were aggressively advocated by the WHO and the clear thread running through this analysis is that rich Western countries did not benefit from WHO-advocated countermeasures. The Global South escaped the WHO’s death trap because it either could not effectively implement its disastrous advice or there was passive resistance to it. But if the Global South is now seeking parity with the West in pandemic death, then signing the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty would probably be a good start.
WHO’s the boss – command and control
Agreement between a member state and the WHO as to whether a PHEIC has occurred is currently a requirement. However, the WHO proposes to delete this requirement and grant the Director-General a unilateral right to declare a PHEIC without requiring the affected country to agree with the WHO’s determination.[ix]
The concentration of enormous power in the hands of one individual at the top of an unaccountable supranational quango is mind boggling but entirely in line with the new totalitarian ethos sweeping the Western world. We have already had a clear demonstration of the absurd lengths to which the WHO Director-General will go to fire the starter gun on a pandemic when Ghebreyesus, the current DG, overruled a WHO advisory panel to declare monkeypox a PHEIC in July 2022. The panel had voted against this by a majority of nine to six. Displaying a creative interpretation of elementary school mathematics, Ghebreyesus called this a tie and claimed that, in overruling of the panel, he was acting as a “tie-breaker”.
A new section in Article 13 – Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response – a requires states to recognise the WHO as the “coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency [sic] of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.” [x] [emphasis added]. If you must follow the ‘recommendations’, they’re not recommendations; they’re diktat.
Article 15 of the Pandemic Treaty on Global coordination, collaboration and cooperation reinforces the WHO as godfather of the pandemic industry with this papal decree:
“Recognizing the central role of WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, and mindful of the need for coordination with regional organizations, entities in the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations, the WHO Director-General shall, in accordance with terms set out herein, declare pandemics.”[xi] [emphasis added]
One Health – expanding the global control remit beyond pandemics
The command-and-control aims in the IHR amendments are supplemented in the Pandemic Treaty by the concept of a “One Health” approach which advocates for “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches” to global health care.[xii] This ethos is an insult to common sense, let alone science, because there can almost never be a one-size-fits-all solution to health problems since health risks almost always never affect all strata of the population equally. This was borne out by Covid, with the elderly and frail bearing the brunt of the risk and yet the entire population being forced to accept measures that were detrimental to our health, and which did absolutely nothing to mitigate the risk for the most vulnerable. One Health, a strategy designed for failure, flies in the face of risk stratification, which is the most basic principle of an effective response to any health crisis.
It sounds like a phrase borrowed from the dystopian visions of hell the likes of Huxley and Orwell tried to warn us about. The WHO’s vision of imposing a “whole-of-government”, “whole-of-society”, “One Health” solution on the entire planet encapsulates a totalitarian philosophy symptomatic of the diseased minds now dominating global decision-making in all spheres. It is the expression of the totalising animus that drives the desire for absolute control with a single ideology. Under the guise of “pandemic preparedness”, health has rapidly shifted from being a matter between an individual and his/her doctor to a matter between whole nations and a supranational dictatorial body. To the extent that there is any method to the madness of the One Health approach, it can be found in its synergism with the global profit-making control grid that the WHO is attempting to construct and oversee.
An important clue to what the One Health approach is really all about lies in understanding how the WHO defines the “drivers” of all disease, and therefore how it expects states to address these drivers. There is plenty in the whole treaty to make us all very afraid but clause 3 of article 18 is central:
“The Parties will identify and integrate into relevant pandemic prevention and preparedness plans interventions that address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance.” [emphasis added]
On the face of it, the phrase “human-animal-environment interface” is farcical. Fifty years ago, the only way to invent a phrase like this would be to take LSD while holding a pen over a piece of paper. Today, I suspect that these phrases roll off the tongue with ease if you work for a global quango in which employees are expected to spend three quarters of the day puzzling over how many genders there are and making sure all seventeen of them have ‘safe spaces’. But, if you try to understand why the Vogons at the WHO have chosen this phrase for insertion in a legal document, you realise that it means the entire ecosystem of the planet – humans, animals and their environment.
A global ‘pandemic treaty’ is an insane construct in and of itself, but a global ‘pandemic treaty’ that goes well beyond pandemics and into spheres that only ambitious bureaucrats of an imaginary galactic government could conjure adds yet another surreal element to the unfolding disaster that is the collapse of Western ‘civilisation’. It’s a treaty on climate change, land use, wildlife trade … everything and anything deemed to be a driver of disease according to the WHO’s bottomless well of wisdom and disease drivers. Taking their expansive line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we ought to be able to add the WHO to the list of disease drivers. In any event, the pretexts for declaring health emergencies are limitless, and the central premise of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy that the earth is being destroyed to make space for a bypass is becoming more plausible by the day.
While the WHO Vogons have gleefully labelled their approach ‘One Health’, one gets the distinct impression that it may as well have been called ‘One World’, the only problem with this choice being that very soon the world will not be big enough for the WHO Director-General.
Pandeconomics – expanding WHO’s waistline to expand Big Pharma’s bottom line
A primary goal of shoving pandemic diktat down humanity’s throat is to enable Big Pharma to keep pulling the lever on their vax cash register. This is made plainly obvious by the inclusion of “health products” in the definitions section where an array of Big Pharma’s products is listed as part of the mandated WHO recipe of pandemic medical countermeasures. The specific inclusion here of “cell- and gene-based therapies” should come as no surprise.[xiii]
To any rational observer, the covid vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster through the lens of safety and efficacy. From Big Pharma’s perspective, the covid mRNA experiment has been a resounding success because they now know that their gene-based therapies actually do alter DNA, which if you think about it, is precisely what you’d want gene-based ‘therapies’ to do. The fact that these particular therapies might do a better job of killing you than the targeted virus does – not this writer’s reckless opinion but the carefully considered view of a PhD researcher who has authored a pre-print study on ResearchGate – has not caused a single Vogon at the WHO to blush, even mildly.
DNA alteration, aka hacking humans, is a cornerstone of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Under the 4IR paradigm, each human on the planet is both a controllable data record and a discrete biological software application to be regularly updated with mRNA injections. And because the injectable software update is to be mandatory, there is no obligation to tell you what the updates will do to your body. As a data record and a controllable bio-app, your job is to go to your nearest injection centre to dutifully receive regular updates when instructed or get unplugged from society for failing to do so.
The amendments incorporate an expansion of the WHO’s capacity to police member states down a path of compliance with a vast range of pandemic countermeasures, including compelling developed countries to assist those countries with less sophisticated techno-totalitarian infrastructure. Recognising that the global South is the weak link in pandeconomics, an amendment to IHR Article 13 on Public Health Response mandates that “developed State Parties and WHO shall offer assistance to developing State Parties”, the purpose of which is to “develop, strengthen and maintain … the capacity to respond promptly and effectively to public health risks”.[xiv]
IHR Article 44 dealing with collaboration and assistance includes new language to cater for the establishment of “an international financial mechanism for providing financial assistance to developing countries in the development, strengthening and maintenance of core capacities”.[xv] The mechanism for providing financial resources to developing countries could be “on a grant or concessional basis”.[xvi] What difference does that make when the taxpayer will be footing the bill for the WHO’s pandemic junta?
The current IHR gives countries the option to either request the WHO’s assistance or manage a health event on their own. That choice has been removed and replaced by an unequivocally one-sided determination that the “WHO shall articulate clearly defined assistance to a State Party … in the response to public health risks and other events by providing technical guidance , health products, technologies, know-how, deployment of civil medical personals [sic]… including the mobilization of international teams of experts for on-site assistance, when necessary, and if required cooperate with said Member State in seeking support and international financial assistance to facilitate the containment of the risk at source”.[xvii]
There are new provisions for how the WHO will grease the wheels of the global pandemic industry by “carry[ing] out an assessment of the availability and affordability of the heath [sic] products such as … therapeutics, vaccines … required for responding to public health emergencies of international concern … and in cases of expected shortage of supply, WHO shall develop and [sic] allocation plan for health products to ensure equitable access to people of all States Parties.”[xviii]
There is more verbiage on the WHO’s right to prioritise recipients of Big Pharma’s miraculous offerings right down to instructing states to “scale up production of health products”[xix] and the WHO developing and maintaining databases containing details of the … information required to facilitate manufacturing of health products.
I trust you are getting the picture – this is more of a global business franchise agreement than a ‘pandemic’ treaty.
In the same way that the IHR amendments include measures for bulk transfer of taxpayer funds to Big Pharma, the Pandemic Treaty also includes an explicit invocation under article 19 for each state to allocate no less than “5% of its current health expenditure to pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery”.[xx] It also directs each country to allocate a percentage, as yet unspecified, “of its gross domestic product for international cooperation and assistance on pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery, particularly for developing countries”.[xxi]
The pandemic industry, with the orchestration of its chief administrator, the WHO, is gearing up to repeat the highly successful business model they tested during covid. It’s a simple one. In the words of the then UK health minister, the organ grinder’s monkey extraordinaire, you “frighten the pants off everyone” and get them to believe that the only way to alleviate the fear is with a life-saving ‘vaccine’. With growing numbers of people seeing through this, they need to increase the level of compulsion, which is the purpose of the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty. And, as shown by the craven subservience of elected officials to the global corporatocracy, there are approximately 649 out of a total of 650 organ grinder’s monkeys ready to do the bidding of their masters.
This is the most brazen manoeuvre yet to siphon off vast sums of global taxpayer funds into Big Pharma’s vaults. The lesson learnt from covid, which was a dress rehearsal for the conveyor belt of planned pandemics, is that if you’re going to bring the globe to heel under biomedical fascism, you’re going to need an effective global HQ. This will of course entail a stupendous expansion of the WHO bureaucracy as it undertakes its commercial function as Big Pharma’s global planning, distribution and enforcement network, funded by national taxpayers. This is the public-private partnership of capitalist fascism or, if you prefer, fascist capitalism.
Papers Please! Doubling down on vaccine passports and the New Normal of human guinea pigs
While most countries are winding down their vaccine passport schemes owing to complete failure of the covid ‘vaccines’ and resistance from citizens, the WHO is doubling down on papers-please fascism with a plan to reinstate medical apartheid through more vaccine certification. The new era of pandemics will not bear fruit without an effective mechanism to coerce and police humanity into accepting Big Pharma’s medical products and so an amendment to Article 18 of the IHR grants the WHO new powers to “ensure mechanisms to develop and apply a traveller’s health declaration in international public health emergency of international concern [sic]”.[xxii]
“Paper based or digital format” tracking and tracing of travellers has been added to Article 23 of the IHR which deals with health measures on arrival and departure.[xxiii] States will be authorised to require information from travellers “on vaccination against a disease … in digital/electronic form”.[xxiv] Article 36 on certificates of vaccination makes new provisions for “other types of proofs and certificates” such as “test certificates and recovery certificates.”[xxv]
One of the most bizarre statements on vaccine passports is a proposed amendment to Annex 6 of the IHR which reads:
“When a public health emergency of international concern has been declared, for the purposes of entry and exit of international travellers in a scenario of voluntary vaccination using products still at the research phase or subject to very limited availability, vaccination certificates should be considered approved in accordance with the normative framework of the country of origin…”[xxvi] [Emphasis added]
The primary reason why the global covid ‘vaccination’ programme is a crime against humanity is that the entire planet was coerced into taking an experimental medical product. The primary reason why most people haven’t quite grasped this is because it is simultaneously too obvious and too shocking. That, plus the fact that most people lost their marbles and joined a cult in a state of induced mass hysteria. The entire upper echelons of the Western machinery of government turned into little Mengeles overnight and the world just wasn’t ready for it. Voluntary informed consent was binned in favour of a worldwide experiment in which a product based on a novel technology with no long-term safety profile was shoved into the arms of billions of people.
What’s all this got to do with the IHR amendment to Annex 6, I hear you asking. Well, it’s an ongoing attempt to normalise a thoroughly abnormal and criminal event by confirming that humans will be expected, as Big Pharma’s guinea pigs, to regularly consume “products still at the research phase”. And if you’re going to normalise abnormalities, you may as well package them up in a Russian doll to make the whole sick process more efficient. Thus, the abnormal consumption of “research phase” medications will be eased by pairing them with New Normal vaccine passport restrictions to remind the recalcitrant guinea pigs that they really should get with the New Normal programme of human experimentation enforced by certification.
It’s not clear what is meant by the instruction in Annex 6 to consider these experimental vaccine certificates “approved”, although it is reasonable to assume that this gives the member state the authority to use them as they have already been used and are intended to be used – in a discriminatory way by granting privileges to the holders while denying basic rights to those who refuse to be guinea pigs.
An amendment to Article 35 of the IHR includes new assurances that “low and lower middle-income countries shall receive assistance” in getting their techno-totalitarian digital control grids up and running to the same rigorous standards applied in richer countries.[xxvii] Is this really where aid to developing countries is most needed, I hear you ask. I too yearn for the old discourses of improving sanitation, nutrition and housing, but perhaps we are a little too change-resistant.
Key lesson learned from covid – better censorship required and practice makes perfect
Reliable and credible dissenting opinion from qualified experts over the last three years has exposed the bankruptcy of the WHO and governmental responses to covid. Unable to suppress the truth that rose up to challenge the lies pedalled by the WHO and all the major public health authorities in the West, an even more aggressive censorship drive cloaked in Orwellian ‘counter-disinformation’ language is being launched. Scientific discourse unfettered by financial corruption poses a grave threat to the pandemic industry and an IHR amendment to Article 44 proposes to address this threat with the inclusion of a new clause on “countering the dissemination of false and unreliable information about public health events, preventive and anti-epidemic measures and activities in the media, social networks and other ways of disseminating such information”.[xxviii]
Article 17 of the Pandemic Treaty calls it “strengthening pandemic and public health literacy”. Literacy. You are illiterate if you disagree with the WHO. Undertones of Goebbels here, whose ministry of propaganda was called the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. The Nazis were also dedicated to enhancing literacy. Do the Vogons not realise that a public health body banging on about ‘strengthening literacy’ is not ‘good optics’, in quango PR speak? We know that the WHO propagated misinformation and disinformation on every single pillar of the official covid narrative and we also know that instructing member states to commit to “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation”[xxix] is simply their faithful application of the fascist’s rulebook – accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing. This invocation also contains a Freudian slip by combining the double negative – by encouraging states to tackle false misinformation, the liars have inadvertently revealed their true intent to tackle information.
Article 13 of the Pandemic Treaty formalises pandemic “simulation” and “tabletop exercises” of the sort that were occurring in the 15-20 years leading up to the covid pseudo pandemic. So rather than investing resources into useful healthcare systems such as hospitals – the places which house equipment and staff to treat patients – member states are directed by article 13 to “convene multi-country or regional tabletop exercises every two years”[xxx] to rehearse for the next release, accidental or otherwise, of a biologically engineered pathogen by the US military industrial complex.
Exit the WHO
Here in England, both the Government and the so-called opposition are actively working to destroy democracy and national sovereignty in favour of a system of global governance in which policies are crafted and forced on us by unaccountable supranational organisations. Out of a total of 650 elected representatives in Parliament, so far only one has highlighted the threat – Andrew Bridgen. His reward? The Conservative Party has expelled him for tweeting the opinion of a cardiologist that the covid vaccine rollout is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust. Whatever your opinion on that comparison is, people like Edward Dowd have meticulously analysed the data from reliable sources, and their analysis supports the gravity of the crime.
Responding to Bridgen’s concerns about how the Pandemic Treaty “will take accountability, democracy and sovereignty from our constituents and hand them over to unelected and discredited bureaucrats”, Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, replied:
“It is only through international co-operation and collaboration that we will arrive at solutions to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the last few years, and that everyone in the world is safe from those terrible diseases.”
When I read that sentence I was reminded of a remonstration delivered by a teacher during my school days to a pupil whose best efforts to evade an afternoon of sports activity failed to gain any traction with the sports master. Addressing the pupil by name, which I have changed to protect his identity, the teacher bellowed, “Mordaunt, you’re the only person I know who is capable of uttering three lies for every one word spoken.” There are indeed several lies to unpack in Mordaunt’s single sentence.
We certainly do not want “a repeat of the last few years” in which mass atrocities – lockdowns and coerced vaccinations with unsafe and ineffective products – were committed by our governments and advocated by the WHO. One way to guarantee a repeat of similar atrocities would be to engage in the kind of “international co-operation and collaboration” envisioned by Mordaunt and the WHO. Thus, the threat to “everyone in the world” is not from “those terrible diseases”. It’s from totalitarian governments hell-bent on destroying liberty and health under the guise of combatting pandemics. And since the current best evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory engineered pathogen, the terrible diseases to which Mordaunt refers will likely not be natural in origin but produced in government funded laboratories. In short, the best way to stop the next pandemic is to jail the people who started the last one.
National sovereignty acts as a buffer against the spiralling tyranny of centralised control coming from global corporations and the supranational institutions over which they have outright control or outsized influence. And it is national sovereignty that the WHO seeks to destroy. At least 52% of the UK – those who voted for Brexit – should therefore understand the urgency of exiting from the WHO. If after reading this article you still can’t make up your mind about whether the WHO’s ambition to implement global medical bio-fascism is a good or bad thing, my last-ditch gambit to sway you is to highlight some of the more insufferable examples of how the Vogons at the WHO have butchered the English language in their quest for global dominance.
Should they succeed in their quest, your children may leave school or university talking about: the “upgradation” of infrastructure; the “adequate yearly replenishment of reinforcement ratio”; the “improved agility of the health products listing”; referring to groups of countries as “States Parties”; “multisectoral rapid response teams”; “operationalizing and achieving equity”, and; “interoperable early warning and alert systems”. Is that not frightening enough?
Contrary to the WHO’s assertion in the preamble to their global totalitarian health charter that “the international spread of disease is a global threat with serious consequences for public health, human lives, livelihoods, societies and economies”,[xxxi] the past three years have demonstrated beyond any doubt that the biggest threat to humanity right now is our government, the WHO and the entire ecosystem of supranational bodies whose brain, such as it is, seems to be the World Economic Forum.
If we have not already reached it, we are fast approaching the apogee of a corrupt merger between state and corporate power. Never before in the history of humanity has there existed a global superstructure with the ability to extend the cancerous growth of this merger to every corner of the globe with such speed. The WHO, self-proclaimed promoter of public health, is the cancer that needs to be cut out. We can do this by starting a grass roots movement to force the puppets in parliament to exit the WHO.
You can read more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com
[i] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 1 Definitions, page 2.
[ii] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Background Methodology and Approach, clause 2, page 1.
[iii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 3 Principles, page 3.
[iv] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 14, clause 2, page 21.
[v] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 3 Principles, page 3.
[vi] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 3 Principles, clause 1, page 3.
[vii] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 4 Guiding principles and rights, page 10-11.
[viii] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 4 Guiding principles and rights, clause 8, page 11.
[ix] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 12 Determination of a public health emergency of international concern public health emergency of regional concern, or intermediate health alert, page 9.
[x] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, New Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response, clause 1, page 13.
[xi] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 15 Global coordination, collaboration and cooperation, clause 2, page 22.
[xii] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 18 One Health, clause 7, page 24.
[xiii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 1 Definitions, page 2.
[xiv] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 13 Public health response, clause 1, page 11.
[xv] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 44 Collaboration and Assistance, clause 1 c, page 24.
[xvi] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, New Article 44A Collaboration and Assistance, clause 1, page 27.
[xvii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 13 Public health response, clause 3, page 12.
[xviii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, New Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response, clause 2, page 13.
[xix] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, New Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response, clause 4, page 13.
[xx] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 19 Sustainable and predictable financing, clause 1 (c), page 25.
[xxi] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 19 Sustainable and predictable financing, clause 1 (d), page 25.
[xxii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 18, clause 2, page 18.
[xxiii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 23, clause 1, page 19.
[xxiv] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 23, clause 1 a (ii), page 19.
[xxv] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 36, clause 3, page 22.
[xxvi] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Annex 6, page 47.
[xxvii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 35, clause 2, page 22.
[xxviii] Article-by-article compilation of proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), A/WGIHR/2/7, 6 February 2023, Article 44, clause 1 (h), page 25.
[xxix] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 17 Strengthening pandemic and public health literacy, clause 1, page 23.
[xxx] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, Article 13 Preparedness monitoring, simulation exercises and universal peer review, clause 2&3, page 20-21.
[xxxi] Zero Draft of the WHO CA+, A/INB/4/3, 1 February 2023, page 4.