THE WHO PANDEMIC TREATY – A CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT TO DEMOCRACY
Here's what you can do to help protect YOUR future
By Jasmine Birtles
THE World Health Organisation [WHO] and the World Economic Forum [WEF] begin a four-day meeting on Sunday as they continue to close the net on your right to choose.
A month ago News Uncut alerted you of plans for a Pandemic Treaty, whereby the WHO would have complete control over health regulations of all nations in the event of a pandemic ‘or other health emergency’. The plans have been described by the World Council for Health as an “undemocratic farce”.
Although some other alternative media have covered this momentous and world-changing potential power-grab by the unelected WHO, the mainstream media has been largely silent over the issue.
But thanks to increasing pressure from concerned voters, a few MPs have started to be aware of plans by members of the WHO to discuss it in August 2022, make it law in 2023 and to put it into practice by 2024.
About time too. Given that Brexit was largely fought for on the issue of our sovereignty and was debated extensively and accompanied by a referendum, you would think that the very same issue of sovereign control would be concerning MPs and media barons alike.
Not a bit of it, it seems. Here we are, about to cede authority and oversight in a key area of our lives to the WHO with undue haste, minimal communications, no debate and no referendum.
I say ‘about to cede authority’ because already Prime Minister Boris Johnson has written about his commitment to this proposed treaty, as has US President Joe Biden. When the leaders of countries nail their flags to the mast so early on it is difficult for MPs and legislators to take an opposite road.
What are the implications of the proposed power shift from nation states to the WHO?
Any vote in the World Health Assembly would be carried by a majority but all member countries would then be subject to the decision even if they disagreed due to a national democratic process.
There could be economic sanctions against any country not complying with WHO edicts.
The treaty would cover pandemic prevention, preparedness and response which provides for an extensive range of interventions even when there is no pandemic. It is highly likely that the requirement for vaccine ‘passports’, even though rejected in various parts of the world, would be a mandated base in order that the desired control could be implemented.
Despite the fact that the UK is a centre for medical excellence, our Government would be subject to decisions made by the WHO in relation to a pandemic (as defined by the WHO)
The WHO will have the ability to determine what ‘the science’ is. As with the Covid pandemic, experienced and qualified health practitioners with alternative views could be ignored.
Matters such as testing, vaccinations, lockdowns, health ‘passports’, travel restrictions, surveillance are all factors which could be arbitrated by the WHO in order to achieve their new brief.
As an unelected body with immunity from challenge in any national court, citizens who disagreed with WHO policies or were injured by them would have no recourse.
The WHO. have a meeting in Geneva on May 22-28 at which modifications may be made to existing authorities, extending the power of the WHO prior to the introduction of the actual pandemic treaty. This may reduce individual rights.
Final voting on the treaty will be next year with implementation in 2024.
The WHO has indicated that it will be open to further consultative input on June 16 and 17 (only).
At the bottom of this article, News Uncut has included template letters for you to cut and paste on to a document for printing, or on to an email to send to your MP and make your views known.
Who runs the WHO?
According to the WHO website, while most donors are from countries or their established agencies, the second largest contributor to the WHO finances (2020/21) was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation which contributed $751,000,000 in 2020/21).
Some reports put the sponsorship of the WHO by pharmaceutical companies at 70 per cent, based on the fact that, within the countries listed as donors to the WHO, much of the donations are made by interested bodies (pharma) rather than governments themselves.
What can you do about this planned treaty?
Firstly, sign the petition seeking a referendum on this planned treaty. You will find the petition here. The more who show their concern the more notice MPs may take of the views they were elected to represent.
It is important that you contact your MP with your personal view as quickly as possible. They need to know that we are awake, aware and will not take this lying down.
On May 21 and and 22 there will be a World Wide Rally for Freedom in 150+ cities around the world including London, Manchester, Dublin, Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Bristol, Canterbury & Leeds. This rally will focus against restrictions of speech, movement, choice, assembly and health which will push back against authoritarian actions such as the planned WHO treaty.
Pass on this article on to friends, contacts and social media followers to increase the awareness of this clear and present threat to our individual and collective well-being.
The significance of the proposed treaty and the implications of worldwide management of any health aspect of our lives, and those of subsequent generations, is too great for us not to react.
IMPORTANT TEMPLATES
Dear [name of your Cabinet member MP],
You may be aware of concerns by a significant number of the general public in relation to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) plan to establish themselves as the singular controlling and guiding authority in world healthcare via the introduction of a new treaty.
The proposed “Pandemic Treaty” supported by twenty-five heads of government, including Boris Johnson, is clearly very concerning however, I would like to draw your attention to a, potentially, more imminent threat to the sovereignty of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - the proposed amendments, submitted by the USA, to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).
By way of context, I shall provide a brief timeline:
January 2022 - a USA delegate of the Biden Administration, without public awareness, submitted to the WHO proposed amendments to the IHR (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf). The Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (“Tedros”) in turn submitted the proposals to the legislative body of the WHO, the World Health Assembly (“WHA”), for its consideration, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the IHR. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the IHR Tedros also communicated the text of the proposed amendments to all State Parties;
12th April 2022 - the proposed amendments were made public;
22nd to 28th May 2022 - the proposed amendments will be delivered, for a vote, to the WHA at the 75th World Health Assembly where the amendments are scheduled as provisional agenda item 16.2, “strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies” (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_1Rev1-en.pdf).
If the proposed amendments are passed they will:
empower Tedros to arbitrarily declare health emergencies in any nation on a unilateral basis and without the consent of the nation. Tedros will be able to declare a health crisis, or an emergency based solely on his personal opinion or his consideration that there is a “potential or possible threat”;
compromise the independence and sovereignty of all 193 United Nations members states (all members of the WHO), which would result in the WHO having power over 99.44% of the world’s population;
remove all obligations on the WHO and Tedros to “consult” with and to obtain “verification” from nation states where the possibility of a health emergency exists. The nation from within whose borders the potential emergency emanates will be rendered powerless. By deleting such language, the checks and balances placed upon the WHO and Tedros are removed allowing Tedros to declare an emergency at his will;
allow the WHO to take steps to collaborate with other nations and organisations worldwide to deal with the alleged emergency or crisis in a sovereign nation, even if that nation does not require or request the “assistance”;
reduce the existing timeframe for rejection of or reservation from the amendments from 18 months to a mere 6 months; and
allow the WHO to unilaterally develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…”.
Forty-seven nations support the US authored amendments and I assume you are aware that Great Britain and Northern Ireland are amongst that number.
The IHR does not define what amounts to a health emergency, but it clearly goes beyond a pandemic, covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…” The WHO Constitution, which is a separate document from the IHR, does provide insight into what falls within the WHO mandate - it is extensive. When the two documents are considered together it is quite apparent that almost any problematic situation involving the people could be considered a “health” emergency and thus the WHO and Tedros could call a crisis over anything they choose.
If passed, the extensive new powers are going to be vested in Tedros who was indicted before the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed against the people of his own country - Ethiopia. In addition, Tedros has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party - many believe that he was put in his current position of Director General as a direct consequence of that relationship. This makes the empowerment of Tedros and the WHO alarming.
In light of the above, can you please provide answers to the following questions:
who are the delegates from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the WHA? Each nation is permitted up to three delegates with one designated “Chief Delegate”;
were you aware of the proposed amendments? If so, what have you done to oppose them?
do you believe that, if passed, the revised IHR would allow Tedros to arbitrarily declare a global health emergency or a regional emergency in our nation without the nation’s consent? And if not, can you please provide your reasons?
if passed, do the revised regulations become legally binding in our country - do they become law or as treaty obligations do they not have the force of law domestically?
please provide both the “assessed contributions” and the “voluntary supplemental assessed contributions” for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the WHO, for the last five years;
do you believe that the proposed amendments are a vehicle for accelerating the timeline for the “Pandemic Treaty”?
are you aware of any discussions regarding the sanctioning of nations who disregard the IHR and/or the WHO Constitution?
do you believe that such enhanced powers could be used to shame and therefore intimidate, ostracise and/or dominate a country?
considering the grave errors that the WHO has made during the last two years (not least abandoning its own recommendations and guidelines for pandemics in favour of the Chinese totalitarian model of lockdowns, masks, mandates and vaccine passports) with regard to the health and well-being of the people, do you feel it wise to vest more power in Tedros and the WHO? And if so, please provide your reasons.
do you believe these amendments are part of the globalist agenda, “The Great Reset” (which is openly promoted by the World Economic Forum)?
have the proposed amendments to the IHR and the potential ramifications been discussed in Parliament? If so, can you please provide details. If not, can you please explain why discussions have not been tabled?
In summary, the proposed amendments have been introduced by stealth with the majority of the general public not being aware of the pending changes. Instead, the focus is on the pending "Pandemic Treaty" which, I believe, is by design.
Consequently, we the people have very little time to mount a strong opposition, but it is my firmly held belief that we must do so. I believe that we are facing an existential threat to our freedoms - I implore you to do everything in your power to have these proposed amendments withdrawn before they come to a vote this upcoming weekend. You must defend the interests of our nation. If the proposed amendments are approved, you are empowering unelected, unaccountable officials to steal sovereignty and freedom from the people - this is unacceptable and untenable.
I will be contacting you in due course regarding the “Pandemic Treaty”.
I would be grateful for your urgent response.
Yours sincerely,
[Include your name and postal address]
URGENT CALL TO ACTION
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS, DUE TO BE DISCUSSED THIS WEEKEND AT THE 75TH WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY, AFFECT YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY – ACT NOW!
Please contact your MP to express your deep concern about the proposed amendments using the templates below. Please follow the instructions carefully.
INSTRUCTIONS
Use this link to check if your MP is a member of the Cabinet https://members.parliament.uk/Government/Cabinet
If they are, send MAIN DOCUMENT (below) as an email (or postal letter) to them and include your name and postal address.
If your MP is NOT a member of the Cabinet, send MAIN DOCUMENT as an attachment and please include the COVER EMAIL.
MAIN DOCUMENT
Dear [insert name of Cabinet Minister],
You may be aware of concerns by a significant number of the general public in relation to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) plan to establish themselves as the singular controlling and guiding authority in world healthcare via the introduction of a new treaty.
The proposed “Pandemic Treaty” supported by twenty-five heads of government, including Boris Johnson, is clearly very concerning however, I would like to draw your attention to a, potentially, more imminent threat to the sovereignty of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - the proposed amendments, submitted by the USA, to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).
By way of context, I shall provide a brief timeline:
January 2022 - a USA delegate of the Biden Administration, without public awareness, submitted to the WHO proposed amendments to the IHR (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf). The Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (“Tedros”) in turn submitted the proposals to the legislative body of the WHO, the World Health Assembly (“WHA”), for its consideration, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the IHR. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the IHR Tedros also communicated the text of the proposed amendments to all State Parties;
12th April 2022 - the proposed amendments were made public;
22nd to 28th May 2022 - the proposed amendments will be delivered, for a vote, to the WHA at the 75th World Health Assembly where the amendments are scheduled as provisional agenda item 16.2, “strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies” (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_1Rev1-en.pdf).
If the proposed amendments are passed they will:
empower Tedros to arbitrarily declare health emergencies in any nation on a unilateral basis and without the consent of the nation. Tedros will be able to declare a health crisis, or an emergency based solely on his personal opinion or his consideration that there is a “potential or possible threat”;
compromise the independence and sovereignty of all 193 United Nations members states (all members of the WHO), which would result in the WHO having power over 99.44% of the world’s population;
remove all obligations on the WHO and Tedros to “consult” with and to obtain “verification” from nation states where the possibility of a health emergency exists. The nation from within whose borders the potential emergency emanates will be rendered powerless. By deleting such language, the checks and balances placed upon the WHO and Tedros are removed allowing Tedros to declare an emergency at his will;
allow the WHO to take steps to collaborate with other nations and organisations worldwide to deal with the alleged emergency or crisis in a sovereign nation, even if that nation does not require or request the “assistance”;
reduce the existing timeframe for rejection of or reservation from the amendments from 18 months to a mere 6 months; and
allow the WHO to unilaterally develop and update “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources…”.
Forty-seven nations support the US authored amendments and I assume you are aware that Great Britain and Northern Ireland are amongst that number.
The IHR does not define what amounts to a health emergency, but it clearly goes beyond a pandemic, covering “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans…” The WHO Constitution, which is a separate document from the IHR, does provide insight into what falls within the WHO mandate - it is extensive. When the two documents are considered together it is quite apparent that almost any problematic situation involving the people could be considered a “health” emergency and thus the WHO and Tedros could call a crisis over anything they choose.
If passed, the extensive new powers are going to be vested in Tedros who was indicted before the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed against the people of his own country - Ethiopia. In addition, Tedros has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party - many believe that he was put in his current position of Director General as a direct consequence of that relationship. This makes the empowerment of Tedros and the WHO alarming.
In light of the above, can you please provide answers to the following questions:
who are the delegates from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the WHA? Each nation is permitted up to three delegates with one designated “Chief Delegate”;
were you aware of the proposed amendments? If so, what have you done to oppose them?
do you believe that, if passed, the revised IHR would allow Tedros to arbitrarily declare a global health emergency or a regional emergency in our nation without the nation’s consent? And if not, can you please provide your reasons?
if passed, do the revised regulations become legally binding in our country - do they become law or as treaty obligations do they not have the force of law domestically?
please provide both the “assessed contributions” and the “voluntary supplemental assessed contributions” for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the WHO, for the last five years;
do you believe that the proposed amendments are a vehicle for accelerating the timeline for the “Pandemic Treaty”?
are you aware of any discussions regarding the sanctioning of nations who disregard the IHR and/or the WHO Constitution?
do you believe that such enhanced powers could be used to shame and therefore intimidate, ostracise and/or dominate a country?
considering the grave errors that the WHO has made during the last two years (not least abandoning its own recommendations and guidelines for pandemics in favour of the Chinese totalitarian model of lockdowns, masks, mandates and vaccine passports) with regard to the health and well-being of the people, do you feel it wise to vest more power in Tedros and the WHO? And if so, please provide your reasons.
do you believe these amendments are part of the globalist agenda, “The Great Reset” (which is openly promoted by the World Economic Forum)?
have the proposed amendments to the IHR and the potential ramifications been discussed in Parliament? If so, can you please provide details. If not, can you please explain why discussions have not been tabled?
In summary, the proposed amendments have been introduced by stealth with the majority of the general public not being aware of the pending changes. Instead, the focus is on the pending "Pandemic Treaty" which, I believe, is by design.
Consequently, we the people have very little time to mount a strong opposition, but it is my firmly held belief that we must do so. I believe that we are facing an existential threat to our freedoms - I implore you to do everything in your power to have these proposed amendments withdrawn before they come to a vote this upcoming weekend. You must defend the interests of our nation. If the proposed amendments are approved, you are empowering unelected, unaccountable officials to steal sovereignty and freedom from the people - this is unacceptable and untenable.
I will be contacting you in due course regarding the “Pandemic Treaty”.
I would be grateful for your urgent response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your name and address, including postcode, if constituent of Cabinet MP]
COVER EMAIL
Dear [Name of your non Cabinet MP],
I am concerned about the imminent vote on proposed changes to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted by the USA, in January 2022, to the World Health Organisation (WHO). It is my understanding that the said vote will be taking place at the 75th World Health Assembly (22nd to 28th May 2022).
If the amendments are approved, I believe that our nations sovereignty will be ceded to an unelected, unaccountable supranational organisation to the detriment of the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I find it astonishing that the nation would go through Brexit just to concede power to the WHO essentially swapping governing by the EU for governing by the WHO. If the general public were aware of this, do you think they would accept it?
Please find attached, for your information, a letter sent to the members of the Cabinet on this matter.
I look forward to receiving your thoughts and your position on this very important issue.
Best regards,
[Your name and postal address]
Further reading/ viewing:
