THERE WERE CONCERNING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PUSH FOR THE PANDEMIC ACCORD
And now onto our main discussion regarding why the WHO’s pandemic accord should not be adopted; and as alluded to earlier on, on May 19, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) took a historic but deeply concerning step: Member States, through Committee A of the World Health Assembly, officially approved the WHO Pandemic Agreement. However, that is not the final stage, as the plenary is for yet to adopt the accord. And so, we ought to detail precisely why this pandemic accord should not be adopted. To begin with, I’d like to dispel the assumption that the pandemic accord emerged out of sincerity or the urgent necessity that has been claimed by the DG of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus. Rather, this very pandemic accord emerged out of concerning circumstances – which should not be lost on anyone.
More specifically, the draft pandemic accord has been under development for three years by delegates of 194 Member States of the World Health Organization. The WHO has been pushing to negotiate a pandemic treaty or accord allegedly to better prepare the world for pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, in parallel with a new set of amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR).
But, here’s where we find the concerning context behind the pandemic accord and the amendments to the international health regulations. In essence, the IHR amendments were pushed to a vote at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024, less than 48 hours after negotiations on them finished. This haste was in blatant violation of the WHO’s own procedural requirements! Meanwhile, in December 2021, the WHA instituted the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to negotiate the pandemic agreement, but this body failed to reach agreement for the 2024 world health assembly.
Following this failure, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was then mandated “to finish its work as soon as possible” and no later than a year. The reason for this is that the WHO has tried to add to the sense of haste, with its Director-General (DG) recently claiming that (quote) “the next pandemic could occur tomorrow.” However, the problem with this manufactured sense of urgency is that it is not based on a sincere interest to prepare against genuine health concerns, since for one viruses and lab leaks do not occur naturally. But, secondly, the pandemic accord is drafted to orchestrate a power grab. This is to say that drafts of the PA, along with the IHR amendments, seek to centralise management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO, considerably expanding its role in public health, all while undermining the sovereignty of nations. But, ultimately, what this hastened nature of the pandemic accord and the IHR amendments shows is that its acceleration emerges out of political interest, and not organic necessity – especially seeing that the WHO even undermined its own regulations in the process.
However when we consider that the WHO is not a genuine health-focused body, and instead is one that has been working against the advancement in good health practices while pushing a bacteriological warfare agenda, this context is not difficult to appreciate. However, what should be jarring is that the agreement centers on something called the PABS system, a global plan to share profits from so-called “pandemic pathogens.”
THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY
Let’s proceed to the second reason why the pandemic accord should not pass, which is the fact that the accord is designed to inherently undermine sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’ dlike for us to kindly have a listen as the DG of the WHO tries to make a disingenuous case for why sovereignty is not undermined.
Let’s directly respond to this. In essence, while Article 3 of the pandemic accord affirms national sovereignty (on paper), the agreement—adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution—creates binding international obligations for Parties once ratified (especially when you look at Articles 31–33). And this happens because these provisions empower the WHO to coordinate pandemic responses through: (1) a global Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (according to Article 12); a Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) (according to Article 13); a Coordinating Financial Mechanism for pandemic response (according to Article 18); and a National pandemic planning, surveillance, and communications strategies (according to Articles 4, 6, 16). And then to top it off, once ratified, countries would be expected to align domestic policies with WHO-led systems, thus subjecting national decision-making to international influence. And so, while article 3 of the pandemic accord is paraded as a preliminary response to concerns of the erosion of sovereignty, the entire accord completely disregards it in various avenues!
Furthermore, this means that the global concept of (quote-unquote) “One Health” remains in the pandemic agreement. And One Health is defined in the pandemic treaty as an “integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.” This therefore introduces a problematic expansion of the WHO’s authority into new areas including global warming, the environment, farming, and food supplies!
KEY CONCERNS HIDDEN IN THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT
It does not stop there, because there are a number of detrimental provisions that are outlined in the pandemic agreement, detailed in various articles of the document. First, the WHO pandemic agreement promotes expedited regulatory authorisations and WHO’s Emergency Use Listing during pandemics (through Article 8.2). It encourages regulatory alignment and urges manufacturers to allocate 20% of their real-time production of vaccines and therapeutics to WHO, including 10% as a donation (which you see in Article 12.6). And what this is aimed towards is a global deployment of more experimental injections.
Secondly, there is no built-in liability or compensation for injuries. This is to say that although mass distribution of pandemic countermeasures is promoted, the agreement includes no binding provisions for compensation. To add to this, Resolution OP15.10 from the Assembly merely requests the WHO to develop “non-binding advice” on managing legal risks related to novel pandemic vaccines, leaving responsibility to individual nations.
Then thirdly, the pandemic agreement further lays groundwork for vaccine passports and digital surveillance! In Article 6.3, the agreement mandates development of inter-operable national health information systems. Article 8.4 encourages regulatory reliance, and Article 16 promotes population-level risk communication and “pandemic literacy.” While vaccine passports are not explicitly named, the structure supports global digital compliance mechanisms linked to immunization and surveillance, which culminates in vaccine passports.
THE W.H.O IS NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF POWER IT DEMANDS
Equally important is the competence of the WHO in potentially having an expanded role. Here, we ought to address the fact that even if the provisions of the pandemic accord were legitimate (which they categorically are not), the WHO is also just yet another poorly and corruptly run bureaucracy, which SHOULD disqualify it from being given this amount of power.
For starters, the WHO maintained for years that a lab leak was highly unlikely as a cause for Covid, including on its investigative panel people suspected of sharing responsibility for work leading to the probable leak. It then publicly insisted that there was no human-to-human transmission of the virus as reports increased of spread in the population in Wuhan, China, and subsequently provided highly flawed and exaggerated case fatality rates.
Then secondly, despite extensive and early evidence of low harm from Covid-19 to children, the WHO was essentially silent as schools were closed for hundreds of millions of children – which in various contexts, set the scene for drastic ramifications such as crippling education quality, and youth suicidality. The WHO’s COVAX mass vaccination campaign then spent nearly $10 billion vaccinating people it knew were mostly already immune, and never at high risk.
In addition, and in an effort to promote its pandemic preparedness prevention response agenda and the increased funding it is requesting to support this, the WHO and the wider global health industry looking to benefit have embarked on an unusual campaign of demonstrable misrepresentation and confusion. Countries and the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality (mostly based on Medieval data), and exaggerate the expected return on investment. And so, ironically, while the pandemic accord calls for so-called “better adherence to honesty and evidence”, it evidently directs these recommendations to countries rather than the WHO itself. But, president Donald Trump long exposed these issues of corruption and manipulation in the WHO, as early as 2023, and even prior – in his first administration.
THE BINDING NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REMAINS QUESTIONABLE
The final provisions to note concerning the pandemic agreement is that it is drafted to become binding on ratifying countries. When it passed Committee A, the agreement was adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution (Resolution OP1) and became legally binding after 60 countries ratified it (again, according to Articles 31–33). Once in force, it is supposed to obligate Parties to participate in WHO-led coordination and response frameworks during declared pandemic emergencies, even if domestic law would otherwise differ. What this tells us is that the WHO is aware of the largely non-binding nature of international law, and is trying to circumvent that. However, the binding nature of international law remains abstract, and this is because there is no enforcement capacity for international law outside of the voluntary compliance of nation states.
Therefore, while the pandemic agreement is drafted to undermine sovereignty and make way for the dictates of the DG of the WHO, countries do not get arrested for not following them. At best, international law is enforced through sanctions as a penalty or trade benefits as encouragement. However, the WHO is not a nation state or a global trade bloc with great economic or military power. It also needs the donations and funds of nation states to continue its operations. (seeing the large dent that was caused by the US exit from the WHO). Therefore, the power of the WHO is as real as nations allow it to be – which is to say that nations can choose to lightly esteemed the WHO and the provisions of the pandemic accord without significant consequence – again, the US is an example!
In fact, the US is an example in more ways than one, because we can make the same argument about the dollar. The American dollar is nothing more than a piece of paper that is backed by propaganda. It is people who collectively decided to assign value to the dollar and make a reserve currency out of it, and people can also easily decide that it is no longer valuable as currency – since it is backed by nothing but propaganda. And so, just because something is a legally backed provision, does not mean it has inherent value – which is always the case with international law.
MEANWHILE, THE W.H.O IS (STILL) TRADING ON A FADING REPUTATION
Furthermore, the WHO seems to have abandoned any attempt at meaningful dialogue. They still justify the surveillance-lockdown-mass vaccinate model by the logic-free claim that over 14 million lives were saved by Covid vaccines in 2021 (so we all have to do that again). The WHO recorded a little over 3 million Covid-related deaths in the first (vaccine-free) year of the pandemic. For the 14 million ‘saved’ to be correct, another 17 million would somehow have been due to die in year two, despite most people having gained immunity and many of the most susceptible having already succumbed.
Such childish claims are meant to shock and confuse rather than educate. People are paid to model such numbers to create narratives, and others are paid to spin them on the WHO websites and elsewhere. An industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars depends on such messaging. Therefore, scientific integrity has no place in an organisation paid to be a mouthpiece for the financial interest of the medical industrial complex.
And so, what we need to see is a PERSISTENT and well-deserved erosion of trust in the WHO, that also catches up with the global health industry, such that no country ratifies this treaty, thus preventing it from ever coming into force. Furthermore, to fix the underlying problem and derail the pandemic industrial complex train, we will need to rethink the whole approach to cooperation in international health. Especially in a status quo where the WHO the WHO is being used as a tool, by people who want to take over the world.
But, God has not only placed a moratorium on all satanic and globalist agendas this year, He also is in charge of our planning. Which means, as representatives of nations gather at the WHA, the Church of Jesus Christ is making tremendous power available in prayer, to disrupt and nullify their plans.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso
