RECAPITULATION: THE WHO’S PANDEMIC ACCORD DID NOT TEMERGE OUT OF SINCERITY

The war against the pandemic industrial complex, and we ought to begin with some recapitulation. To begin with, it is essential 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.”

DEVELOPMENT: UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATION AMENDMENTS

Let’s talk about a development in light of the IHRs. For clarity, the IHR are an existing legal agreement outlining the rights and responsibilities of WHO and its member states in handling international public health events, while the Pandemic Accord is a potential new international agreement being negotiated to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response. Therefore, the IHRs and the Pandemic Agreement serve complementary but somewhat distinct purposes in global health governance – differing primarily in scope, objectives, and focus (but are ultimately serving the same purpose – which is the functionality of the WHO, and its potential increase in power), hence, they IHR and the pandemic accord are often discussed in conjunction. Furthermore, there has been an extensive discussion on amendments to the IHR since 2005.

Well, much has been written on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and this is what countries would be making themselves subject to after July 19th, if they do not withdraw. However, many nations are actually raising concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed, and conflict of interest – and we ought to emphasise why these are valid concerns, and not mere considerations that do not end up having a weight in the value judgments made by nations concerning the IHR, and the pandemic accord.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS CURATE AN EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY

But, first, with IHR, on Saturday 19 July, amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) become binding international law (which I think is a dangerous paradoxical statement). In any case, these IHR give the WHO legal authority to influence lockdowns, travel, medical mandates and digital health IDs across major Western nations. How this happens is that through these amendments, the WHO can declare a global emergency — even if there’s no outbreak in your country. That means unelected officials in Geneva could trigger lockdowns, jab campaigns, or border closures in your city based on events somewhere else.

Meanwhile, in the current amendments to the IHR, they deleted the requirement that health measures respect your dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those exact words are scrubbed, and are replaced with vague “equity” language that paves the way for coercion & censorship. Then, because they know that international law is not actually binding (like we;ve discussed previously here on The War Room, the amendments the IHR made a diabolical adjustment to make the WHO decrees enforceable. How they did this is that the IHR requires every country to appoint a National IHR Authority. This is a local enforcement body that takes orders from the WHO. It won’t answer to your vote, your courts, or your constitution. It will coordinate “compliance” with global health law. In other words, the WHO is by passing constitutional sovereignty, meaning that the constitution in your country (as far as health and related policies are concerned) will no longer be the highest law of the land.

Then, if after Saturday 19th, your government is pressed to exit, they have made that option incredibly difficult. This is because July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organization can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. And so, the fact that we are having this conversation now is quite jarring seeing that many leaders and citizens have been speaking out against this attempt at a power grab for years.

THE PANDEMIC ACCORD IS ALSO DESIGNED TO INHERENTLY UNDERMINE SOVEREIGNTY 

Now, I mentioned earlier that the IHR and the pandemic accord ultimately serve the same purpose even though they are presented as different bodies of law. And to drive this further, I’d like to indicate how parallel (and frankly identical) their provisions are when it comes to the erosion of sovereignty. But before we address how the pandemic agreement undermines sovereignty, I’d like 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.

MEANWHILE, THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS ARE A MONEY MAKING PLOT

What is most aggravating about this discourse on the IHR and the pandemic accord is the fact that it is all ultimately a plot by greedy psychopathic people who want to make more money. More specifically, in the 20 years prior to Covid-19, experts recruited by the G20 to present evidence supporting the IHR amendments could only find outbreaks amounting to about 190,000 deaths in the 20 years pre-Covid (and you can find this in the section on “major infectious disease outbreaks” in Annex D of the 2022 G20 report). Putting numbers to these, nearly all (163,000) deaths are attributed to Swine flu in 2009 (about a quarter of normal yearly flu mortality). Most of the remainder were from the geographically confined West African Ebola outbreak, and the Haiti cholera outbreak which arose from sewerage leaking from a United Nations compound. IN CONTRAST, about 1.3 million people are reported to die yearly from tuberculosis and over 600,000 children from malaria. Roughly 100 million died from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined over the same 20-year period. But, undaunted, the G20 secretariat concluded that the acute outbreak like swine flu and ebola constituted an “existential threat” justifying far more resources.

Then, the World Bank teamed up with the WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in their official report aimed at convincing our governments to divert funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases; such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. But, to justify public money being allocated to profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high-burden diseases, they needed to show that pandemics cost economies far more. And what they did is that they presented a graph, in which they drew a line for malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined at $22 billion per year (i.e. probably about 1% or 2% of true cost). Then they drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SARS1 (840 deaths) and MERS (about 800 deaths) cost $50-70 billion.

Based on this graph, covid is costed at over $9 trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns and incentive packages from the extraordinary response. A Lancet article that the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic costs of tuberculosis alone to be $508 billion, but the WHO and the World Bank chose $22 billion for TB, malaria, and HIV combined. This means that the WHO considers a virus with a less than 1 percent mortality rate (being the COVID virus) to require orders of magnitude more finances than three diseases that have killed about 100 million, mostly children and young adults, in just 20 years. This math does not make sense, except you’re trying to justify funnelling money towards the pandemic industrial complex!

And this is not even the gist of it all: there is far more extensive evidence of the WHO and partner agencies misleading the public, media, and governments to promote the pandemic agenda. It is a deliberate misrepresentation intended to divert funds to wealthier nations, their corporations, and investors, increasing inequality and causing net harm. The private sector and a few countries can control most of the WHO’s work through specified funding. Member States go along because delegates want a job with the same agencies or refuse to accept that these agencies fabricate a story, even when a cursory review shows their claims are exaggerated or unfounded.

And so, even though the main proponents of the IHR amendments cannot articulate a coherent case for having them, if nations are not careful and quick to use this opportunity to resist this agenda, they may come into force in their respective nations. This is simply about building an industry to repeat Covid; taking money from the larger but less profitable disease burdens, printing more, and concentrating this wealth amongst those promoting this agenda – it is nothing short of diabolical and abhorrent and a threat to the principles of sovereignty and the more plausible aspects of democracy that we are supposed to protect.

THE W.H.O IS NOT COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF POWER IT DEMANDS

Finally, it is important to reiterate that the WHO is not even competent to be given such a potentially expanded role. And 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.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso