WHO Pandemic Treaty - Real threat to our freedom they are going overboard to distract you from

[D71]

So why do politicians worry about Israel and such when it comes to running in elections?
Is being anointed a requirement to win an election….or not?

RFK Jr. accused of antisemitic claims about COVID but insists he was misunderstood

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared to claim COVID was arguably "engineered" to target certain ethnicities while other groups were more immune, like Chinese and Jewish people

abcnews.go.com

Have you ever been to Israel. It has changed a lot since I was there. They live in nicer place now. We’d fly into Israel and could see it off in distance - green. Because of expensive …Drip irrigation everywhere. Hmmmm I read they have free college and free medical care there. Much better place then USA. Expanding into Gaza will really open their real estate.

Maybe the ADL will return to Israel. What are the chances of that happening once all those pissed off arabs get here?

 

[aenyc]

So why do politicians worry about Israel and such when it comes to running in elections?
Is being anointed a requirement to win an election….or not?

RFK Jr. accused of antisemitic claims about COVID but insists he was misunderstood

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared to claim COVID was arguably "engineered" to target certain ethnicities while other groups were more immune, like Chinese and Jewish people

abcnews.go.com

Have you ever been to Israel. It has changed a lot since I was there. They live in nicer place now. We’d fly into Israel and could see it off in distance - green. Because of expensive …Drip irrigation everywhere. Hmmmm I read they have free college and free medical care there. Much better place then USA. Expanding into Gaza will really open their real estate.

Maybe the ADL will return to Israel. What are the chances of that happening once all those pissed off arabs get here?

So blame the politicians in both places.
No I would never want to live in Israel. No Israel is not a paradise that you describe. Yes they have drip irrigation system and many nice things compared to the arab ghettos surrounding them, but with all the money arabs "get from oil" what stops them? (PS I have drip irrigation in my garden that i built completely myself. It is not expensive to do nor really complex).
In other words its a baloney argument and you need to blame politicians in both places because they sold out to the international oligarchs that know no country and no nationalities.

PS. Israel is one of the most injected countries with excess mortality since 2021 is off the scale.

PPS. I care about ideas and specific statements and actions. While i disagree with RFK on some issues, i agree with him on others. and the ones i agree with i amplify in these forums and in real life. The idea is to change the narrative.

 

[D71]

So blame the politicians in both places.
No I would never want to live in Israel. No Israel is not a paradise that you describe. Yes they have drip irrigation system and many nice things compared to the arab ghettos surrounding them, but with all the money arabs "get from oil" what stops them?
In other words its a baloney argument and you need to blame politicians in both places because they sold out to the international oligarchs that know no country and no nationalities.

PS. Israel is one of the most injected countries with excess mortality since 2021 is off the scale.

Politicians let’s go back to JFK since you don’t want to talk about RFK.

This is most likely the reason he was murdered in addition with halting the Federal Reserve. Young ppl are going to see the things our govt hid away and classified eventually. Shsss the young ppl are already figuring it out. Young man left Lavon Affair out. Left out Rosenbergs But he is getting there. Hmmmm the most AntiSemitic ppl are often jews. Surprise. The groups lot of ppl are complaining on college campus across the USA are probably lead by jews…protesting Israel Netanyahu. They want him arrested. They wanted him out of office before Oct event.

From Tic Tok videos seen of modern Israel it is not bad. When I was there it was hostile but most ppl were all armed to teeth. Gun control is pushed here often by jews but they only mean for everyone else.

I am well aware not all jews are on board. Hahaha Netanyahu ppl killed Rabin shot him in the back to send a message. They felt Rabin had stabbed Israel in back making peace talks with arabs. Netanyahu took his vacated seat.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7361547789286821163

 

[aenyc]

The jews are living in your head. Rent free

 

[D71]

The jews are living in your head. Rent free

it is right there in front of you. Keep searching and talking about that hidden oligarchy.  Address what I just posted there. Call it a lie. Dare you try. You know it is the truth

So why discredit and discount the truth. Why they sealed JFK records away for 60 years and a lot of it is still sealed. Can't deny Rabin Can't deny Lavon Affair Can't Deny Rosenbergs that sent nuke secrets to Israel and Russia.

So what is the weather like over there? Snicker.... Maybe Corbett will come back to Canada to lead ppl like you. Nope he will just GRIFT.

Snicker your brain is rattling around like a bb in a 55 gallon drum. “Trust the Corbett” shop Membership log-in profile

 

[aenyc]

The jews are living in your head. Rent free

 

[D71]

The jews are living in your head. Rent free

Dispute that post. Say it is not true.

Post in thread 'WHO Pandemic Treaty - Real threat to our freedom they are going overboard to distract you from'
https://diysolarforum.com/threads/w...board-to-distract-you-from.60898/post-1088489

Snicker….

 

[aenyc]

Analysis of the Latest WHO Pandemic Agreement Draft – Yes, Another One, and It's Still Bad News – The Daily Sceptic

A new draft of the WHO Pandemic Agreement was released at the end of April. Dr Thi Thuy Van Dinh and Dr David Bell have read it (so you don't have to) and say it's still full of problems.

dailysceptic.org

The World Health Organisation (WHO) negotiating body of the draft Pandemic Agreement to be voted on in late May produced yet another draft (not to be confused with the latest draft of the amendments to the International Health Regulations, published around the same time and discussed here). As the previous Pandemic Agreement text was dealt with in detail in a recent article, it seems relevant to provide a brief summary of the additional changes. As before, the document becomes vaguer but adds more activities to be funded, reinforcing the concerns that this process is being rushed without due review.

Since December 2021, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) has been embarking on this project under the WHO Constitution in order to set a global framework for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It has already failed its own deliverable timeline to reach a consensus text by March 29th 2024 (document A/INB/3/4). That two-month period was not a legal requirement per se, but intended to give the 194 WHO member states some time to review the final text against their domestic legal architecture as well as other international obligations from other treaties to which they are parties. It was scrapped without explanation, demonstrating a far-from-achieved consensus within the INB. However, WHO still plans to have the vote on the provisional agenda of the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) starting on May 27th.

The latest draft, proposed by the INB Bureau (comprised of representatives from Brazil, Egypt, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa and Thailand being co-chairs, aided by six WHO officers from six regional offices), dated April 22nd 2024, was submitted for negotiations at the ninth INB meeting from April 29th to May 10th. As usual, the Bureau streamlines and consolidates the text previously achieved thanks to various groups tasked to reach consensus under thorny articles. This meeting has just concluded in Geneva without reaching the final text. Instead of pausing the project, it was reported that negotiating teams will continue “to resume hybrid and in-person discussions” until the very last minutes before the WHA session. Such decision is an open disdain for the public, stripping from them the legitimate right to be informed about the laws to be made and ignoring the WHO constitution’s principle according to which “informed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people” (Preamble).

All previous iterations contain proposed provisions referencing the International Health Regulations (IHR) draft amendments, also under negotiations and intended to be voted on at the 77th WHA, likely illegitimately, since the four-month review period required by Article 55 para. 2 of the 2005 IHR hasn’t been respected. This latest version isn’t an exception. Multiple proposed provisions (articles 5.4, 19.3, 20.1, and 26.2) are expressly interlinked with the IHR draft amendments although the final wording of these is yet to be set in stone. This strange situation is the outcome of a rushed process, based on unfounded claims of urgency and demanding an additional budget for global health institutions from countries still reeling from the aftermath of a global economic lockdown imposed during the COVID-19 response.

The new draft contains relatively few changes but shuffles several issues around. References to CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), the Sustainable Development Goal Five on gender equality, and “indigenous people” were added in the preamble without much consequence for overall meaning. A new phrase ‘health systems recovery’ made its appearance several times with probable meaning that pandemics do weaken the health systems.

The commentary below focuses on notable new proposals since the previously assessed text.

 

[aenyc]

Pandemic Agreement Bureau draft, April 22nd 2024​

Article 1. Use of Terms
(d) “pandemic-related health products” means the safe, effective, quality and affordable products that are needed for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, which may include, without limitation, diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines and personal protective equipment;

The new definition of “pandemic-related health products” now contains additional standards of safeness, quality and affordability. This recalls repetitive messages from global and national public health authorities about Covid-related products (‘safe and effective’). It seems to be a poor choice of wording, as it raises questions such as who and how to define their safety and effectiveness in order to make this relevant (e.g. must they be transmission-blocking in order to be effective for pandemic interruption?) Clearly, safety and effectiveness are independent of the actual product type. They are an opinion based on criteria which may vary. In a legally-binding document, definitions should be implementable.

Article 6. One Health
4. The modalities, terms and conditions and operational dimensions of a One Health approach shall be further defined in an instrument that takes into consideration the provisions of the International Health Regulations (2005) and will be operational by May 31st 2026.

This new paragraph will push states into a “One Health instrument” project by May 31st 2026 – which may or may not be legally-binding, presumably as a new programme strategy under WHO. It is unclear why the world needs this, and why a similar rush to have it in two-year time, given the overlap with other public health activities.

Article 7. Health and care workforce
3. The Parties shall invest in establishing and sustaining a skilled, trained and coordinated multidisciplinary global health emergency workforce deployable to support Parties upon request, based on public health needs, to contain outbreaks and prevent the escalation of a small-scale spread to global proportions.

This is the first time the “global health emergency workforce” has appeared in Pandemic Agreement texts. The concept bears some resemblance to the current speace-keeping missions intervened under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter, and to the GERM (Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization), a ‘pandemic fire-fighting force’, advocated by a major donor to WHO, Bill Gates. In Gates’s own words: “Running GERM will cost the world around $1 billion a year to cover salaries for the force of 3,000 people we’d need, plus equipment, travel, and other expenses — money that would come from governments. The work would be coordinated by the WHO, the only group that can give it global credibility, and it needs to be accountable to the public.”

This proposal is extremely problematic. If it stays, states will sign up for a new project with little detail but further considerable expenses. Such an idea requires serious thoughts beyond the cost and operational modalities, for example, the organisation approving mandates and budget of the workforce, consent procedures of the host country and the competent jurisdiction under which the workforce will act. Once such bureaucracies are built, it can be very difficult to dismantle them, but they inevitably divert resources – human and financial – from ongoing health problems of higher burden.

Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how for the production of pandemic-related health products
1. Each Party shall, in order to enable the sufficient, sustainable and geographically diversified production of pandemic-related health products, and taking into account its national circumstances: (…)
(b) publish the terms of its licences for pandemic-related health technologies in a timely manner and in accordance with applicable law, and shall encourage private rights holders to do the same;

Although states’ obligation appears weak (“taking into account its national circumstances”), this is a welcome proposal intended to address the problematic secrecy regarding provisions of Covid response-related licences claiming ‘commercial in-confidence’. States should be bound by transparency and accountability principles at all times, especially when spending public money, though “applicable law” may still offer an escape clause.

 

[aenyc]

Article 12. Access and benefit-sharing system
2. The PABS System shall have the following foundations:
(f) not seeking to obtain intellectual property rights on PABS material and information;
6. The modalities, terms and conditions and operational dimensions of the PABS System shall be further defined in a legally binding instrument that will be operational no later than May 31st 2026.

Paragraph 2(f) was likely added to clarify what was already there. The principle only concerns original material and information, excluding derivative and modified material and information.

Paragraph 6 specifies that the “access and benefit-sharing system” will be a legally-binding instrument. It will probably engage states in negotiating a protocol under this pandemic agreement should it be passed.

Article 13. Supply chains and logistics
4. During a pandemic, emergency trade measures shall be targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary, and not create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruptions in supply chains of pandemic-related health products.
6. A multilateral system for managing vaccine and therapeutic-related compensation and liability during pandemics shall be considered.

Paragraph 4 is a more welcome version of the previous 13bis 3. The language was strengthened from a mere recognition of the importance of the “targeted, proportionate, transparent and temporary” emergency trade measures, to introduce an obligation not to burden supply chains of pandemic-related health products.

Paragraph 6 is considerably watered down from the previous draft (Art.15 on liability and compensation mechanism). Explicit reference to a possible “no-fault compensation mechanism” regarding pandemic vaccines to be included in national strategies was removed. The plan for states to make recommendations “for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies” was replaced by a vague and weak consideration for a multilateral system to manage vaccine compensation and liability.

Article 13bis. National procurement
1. Each Party shall publish the relevant terms of its purchase agreements with manufacturers for pandemic-related health products at the earliest reasonable opportunity, and shall exclude confidentiality provisions that serve to limit such disclosure, in accordance with applicable laws, as appropriate. Regional and global purchasing mechanisms shall also be encouraged to do the same.
6. Each Party shall endeavour to ensure that, in contracts for the supply or purchase of novel pandemic vaccines, buyer/recipient indemnity clauses, if any, are exceptionally provided and are time-bound.

Overall, this is more reasonable. Similar to Article 11.1.b.

Article 14. Regulatory strengthening
3. Each Party shall, in accordance with relevant laws:
(b) publicly disclose information on national and, if applicable, regional processes for authorising or approving the use of pandemic-related health products, and adopt regulatory reliance processes or other relevant regulatory pathways, as appropriate, for such pandemic- related health products that may be activated during a pandemic to increase efficiency, and shall update such information in a timely manner.

Another vaguely-worded proposal that seems inappropriate for a legally-binding agreement. “Pandemic-related health products” is extremely broad. This reflects much of the Pandemic Agreement and makes one wonder why it is still considered necessary, rather than just relying on the voluntary 2005 version of the IHR.

Article 18. Communication and public awareness
1.The Parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information on pandemics and their causes, impacts and drivers, particularly through risk communication and effective community-level engagement.
2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, conduct research to inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.

This article becomes shorter and more reasonable with only two paragraphs instead of four. The language on parties’ obligations to apply science- and evidence-based approach to risk assessment (old para. 3) and to cooperate in preventing misinformation and disinformation (old para. 4) were removed. Notably, the reference to “with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation” in old para. 1 was also removed. However, the previous essence still very much remains given the clear approach of WHO to stifle access and credibility of opinions contrary to its official line.

Article 20. Sustainable financing
1. The Parties shall strengthen sustainable and predictable financing, in an inclusive and transparent manner, for implementation of this Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005).
2. In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall:
(b) mobilise additional financial resources to assist Parties, in particular developing country Parties, in the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, including through grants and concessional loans;
3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the Mechanism) is hereby established to provide sustainable financing support, strengthen and expand capacities for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, and to provide any surge response necessary for day zero, particularly in developing country Parties. The Mechanism shall, inter aliae) leverage voluntary monetary contributions for organizations and other entities supporting pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, free from conflicts of interest, from relevant stakeholders, in particular those active in sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

The new text under the Coordinating Financial Mechanism is quite diluted. The reference to the inclusion of an ‘innovative mechanism” including debt relief measures (old para. 20.2(c)) was removed. Subparagraph (f) was added to recognise that contributions from states will not be sufficient, and voluntary monetary contributions will be needed from “relevant stakeholders”, probably private companies, however this should be “free of conflicts of interest” without going into details as to how this may be ensured but letting the future Conference of Parties to sort out operational details. It is difficult to see how private companies or organisations active in this sector would be free from conflict (i.e., potential benefit) if they are supporting WHO in expanding work in this sector. Strong arguments could be made for excluding private sector payment (and therefore influence).

 

[aenyc]

WHO Shows its Contempt for the International Rule of Law​

This week, the Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) will resume its eight round of negotiations on May 16-17th, scheduled only 10 days ahead of the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 27th, where it is planned to vote on the whole package of draft amendments. Concerns have been raised globally by academics, parliamentarians and civil society that the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the WGIHR do not respect their own procedural requirements of Article 55(2) IHR (2005) that prescribes a four-month review period prior to a vote.

Article 55 Amendments
1. Amendments to these Regulations may be proposed by any State Party or by the Director-General. Such proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.
2. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.

This strange situation may be unfathomable for many. Negotiating delegations and country representations are surely composed of prominent diplomats and lawyers. However, when the matter was discussed at the fifth WGIHR meeting in October 2023, it didn’t cause them much discomfort. During the public discussion, WHO Legal Officer stated that Article 55(2) would not apply to the WGIHR as a sub-division of the WHA, disregarding the fact that Article 55(2) didn’t make such distinction, and that the WGIHR had initially intended to respect it by giving itself the January 2024 deadline. One Co-Chair of the WGIHR said that the negotiations of the previous package of amendments adopted in 2005 had continued until the morning of the 58th WHA session. This is a false precedent. The 1969 version of the IHR, amended in 1973 and 1981, had not contained any such procedural provision on amendment submission. The four-month requirement was only added to the 2005 version approved by the WHA at that meeting, and so became applicable after that time. It is therefore obvious that what happened in 2005 did not violate Article 55(2) since it did not exist.

Regrettably, the WGIHR went along with proposals to continue the work until May 2024, as noted in the meeting report.

5. The Co-Chairs noted that, in reference to decision WHA75(9) (2022), it appeared unlikely that the package of amendments would be ready by January 2024. In that regard, the Working Group agreed to continue its work between January and May 2024. The Director-General will submit to the 77th World Health Assembly the package of amendments agreed to by the Working Group.

We are witnessing some sort of cover-up, either voluntarily or not, of the violation of Article 55(2) by leaders and supra-national bodies that will make laws for the rest of the world. Governments subsequently did not raise eyebrows at the WHO’s recent unfounded claims that it had fulfilled the requirements of Article 55(2) by circulating a compilation of 308 proposed amendments in November 2022 – those that have been largely modified or deleted through multiple rounds of negotiations. These claims must be rejected since, as previously demonstrated, Article 55(2) requires the final text to be ready four months ahead of the WHA vote.

The whole IHR amendment process has since become a theatre. The negotiations on a draft pandemic agreement and the IHR draft amendments are probably the most closely watched intergovernmental processes ever. Worried by a future dictated by unelected health bureaucrats to restrain private and business activities without oversight and accountability, the public have made noise and reported and informed their elected representatives about their dismay. For example, this open letter has garnered more than 14,000 online signatures from concerned citizens around the world. Scrapping the four-month period will not only prevent governments from properly reviewing the text before signing up, but also means the public will have less or no time at all to manifest their concerns and opposition.

It is truly shameful that WHO and the WGIHR agreed to disregard Article 55(2) when this could have been an opportunity to demonstrate their seriousness. Internal egos and external pressures probably drive them to be seen as tireless pandemic fighters, despite the catastrophic COVID-19 response. Regardless, the whole world can now see a mockery by intergovernmental bodies ignoring their own rules. What is left of international rule of law?

Have governments realised that they have been misled by the repetitive messages from the G20, WHO and World Bank that there would be more harmful pandemics to come and that the world urgently needs new pandemic agreements? If they return to their senses, there may still be time for them to use Article 56(5) IHR to raise disagreement with the WHO’s interpretation of Article 55(2) at the coming WHA, demanding a deferral of the vote until legal requirements are fulfilled.

Article 56 Settlement of disputes
5. In the event of a dispute between WHO and one or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of these Regulations, the matter shall be submitted to the Health Assembly.

If they fail, their only appropriate option will be to massively vote against both pandemic texts at the 78th WHA.

Will there still be hope for the rule of law to apply in international forums?