Global WHO Treaty for Pandemics with Digital ID and Digital Currency

[ExomatrixTV]

• Slow Down the Great Reset by rejecting WHO's IHR amendments, passed using a loose consensus procedure 16 months ago

Meryl Nass MD
Sep 29, 2023

In January 2022 the USA put forward a dozen new amendments to be considered by the 194 members of the WHO at its annual meeting in May 2022. These proposals essentially would have given the WHO more centralized power and speed up the adoption of new treaties and amendments to existing International Health Regulations. While the EU nations and other US allies came forward to support them, there was considerable pushback and most of the amendments were withdrawn and not put to a vote in 2022. But some remained, and were adopted without a vote after back room negotiations.

These amendments to the existing International Health Regulations reduced the time for new amendments to go into effect from 24 months to 12 months. The initial proposal was to reduce the time period during which nations could issue a formal opt-out to new amendments from 18 to 6 months. That did not fly, so a compromise was reached, giving nations 10 months to reject future amendments before being bound by them. Any amendments adopted next May will come into force 12 months later and will have a 10-month period during which nations can opt out.

However, the amendments passed last year to do this are still subject to the old rules, giving nations 18 months to opt out of them. Those 18 months will be up December 1, 2023.

Nations that opt out of the May 2022 amendments by December 1 will not be bound by future amendments until 24 months after adoption, and will have 18 months to reject future amendments.

Is this complicated or what?

The Great Reset planners are trying to move forward with their CBDCs, Digital IDs, 15 minute “smart” cities, pandemic treaty (currently being referred to as an “accord”) and the IHR amendments, and many other schemes over the next few months. In the current proposed version of the treaty (the Bureau draft) the WHO Bureau has shortened the time for the treaty to go into effect to only 30 days after the 30th signatory nation signs on—which could be next July, or about 9 months from now! But with so many egregious and unpopular proposals in it, expect the WHO managers to make major changes in the next proposed version, due out late in October.

Any opportunity we have to throw a wrench in the works will be good! The eleven nations that formally rejected the UN’s proposals last week are those most likely to reject the IHR amendments at the WHO.

If you have any useful connections with officialls or influentials with any of these nations, please consider contacting them about this!

Meryl Nass MD is a physician and researcher who proved the world's largest anthrax epidemic was due to biological warfare. She revealed the dangers of the anthrax vaccine. Her license was suspended for prescribing COVID medications and 'misinformation.'

• source

👉 Dr. Meryl Nass: "The WHO’s Proposed Amendments Will Increase Man-Made Pandemics" brownstone.org/articles/who-amendments-increase-man-made-pandemics
👉 Dr. Meryl Nass posted some slide images on her Substack from the W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty talk at the Europarl talk (International COVID Summit): merylnass.substack.com/p/reposting-my-slides-on-the-who-from
👉 Dr. Nass's Substack: merylnass.substack.com

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v3bl7gr/?pub=1hi16y

[ExomatrixTV]

• Sinister W.H.O. Developments:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UScNk39xUTk

If you are a citizen or resident of the UK 🇬🇧, please sign this petition and spread the word. The deadline to sign is October 3, 2023.

• petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635904

[ExomatrixTV]

• Out With The W.H.O. and In With The NEW:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qjXrNdcQo2w

My special guest James Roguski entreats us with a call to arms against the controllers who are planning our future. Together we can create our own future apart from the World Health Matrix.

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Answer is Still NO!:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6NnIYXL0Erc

Discussing proposed changes to the International Health Regulations - time is running out to voice opposition and there's MUCH to oppose here!

PLAYLIST of Christine’s interviews with James:
In Conversation with James Roguski - YouTube

James’ interview with Dr. John Campbell, “Sinster developments” -
(1) Sinister developments - YouTube

More useful links from James:

• jamesroguski.substack.com
• StopTheAmendments.com
• ExitTheWHO.org (worldwide)
• ExitTheWHO.com (USA)
• ThePeoplesDeclaration.com
• ScrewTheWHO.com
• JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

James welcomes your phone calls! +1 310-619-3055

Sincerely,
James Roguski

[ExomatrixTV]

BREAKING NEWS:

The Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) admitted today that they believe that they may not be able to complete their work before the deadline set by Article 55 of the International Health Regulations.

In my humble opinion, they are trying to reinterpret [break] the rules.

THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!

Please watch the video below…

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lku_Xg6x714

Transcript:

26:10 Dr. Abdulla Asiri (Saudi Arabia)
Dear colleagues,
We have been operating with the understanding that the package of the proposed amendments resulting from the work of this group would be finalized by January 2024 to meet the four month deadline stated in Article 55.
However, we believe that we all share the same sentiment that, realistically, the whole package of amendments will probably not be ready by January 2024.
We would like to ask the Secretariat whether procedurally we could continue working until the 76th [77th?] World Health Assembly in May 2024.
I’d like to ask the Secretariat to provide some guidance in this matter.

27:00 Stephen Solomon (WHO Secretariat legal counsel)
Thank you co-chair.
The Health Assembly, in decision WHA75/9 requested the working group, and I quote, “to establish a program of work consistent with decision EB150(3), and taking into consideration the report of the IHR Review Committee, to propose a package of targeted amendments for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations.”
Article 55 of the IHR, which is referred to in decision WHA75/9 sets out two procedural requirements relating to proposed amendments.
The first one is that “proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.”
The second one is that “the text of any such 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.”
Again, that’s the text of the relevant article of the IHR, Article 55.
Article 55 of the IHR, including this four month requirement, has never been applied to amendments submitted collectively by a sub-division of the Health Assembly, which is exactly what the WGIHR is.
The WGIHR is a subdivision of the Health Assembly under rule 41 [40?] of the Rules of Procedure of the Health Assembly.
Thus, there are no precedents to rely on with respect to the manner in which the four month requirement set out in Article 55 should be satisfied.
That is to say, Article 55 has been applied to amendments proposed by a state party or by the Director-General, but never by a sub-division of the Health Assembly.
Indeed, it has only been applied with respect to, um, ah, it has not been applied with respect to any sub-division.
This is a first.
Accordingly, an option for consideration by the Working Group, would be for the Director-General to communicate in January 2023 [2024?] the following documents to all states parties:
First, the proposed amendments as originally submitted by member states and already communicated by the Secretariat to all states parties by email, and
Second, the proposed amendments as they might be shown on the screen at the closure of WGIHR/6.
This approach would allow work to continue in the WGIHR, if necessary, up until the 77th Health Assembly itself, recognizing the importance of complementarity with the INB process which, as we know, is mandated to work up until the 77th WHA.
In addition to that, the Working Group may consider requesting the Secretariat to include, in the January communication from the Director-General, a clarification according to which the amendments from the final session of the WGIHR, which could be, conceivably, as late as May, 2024, if necessary, would allow these final results of the May, of such a session, to be formally submitted to the 77th World Health Assembly.
A note on this deadline of the 77th World Health Assembly. If the deadline is not met, the WGIHR would be expected to report to the Health Assembly in May 2024 that agreement could not be reached on the proposed amendments.
This deadline cannot be changed as it was set out in decision WHA75/9.
This approach just outlined for your consideration would fulfill the four month requirement in its purpose as proscribed by Article 55 of the IHR, while at the same time allowing the Working Group to continue its consideration and negotiation of the proposed amendments, including possible modifications to the package that would be communicated to the States Parties.
Should this approach be considered satisfactory, the Working Group may wish to consider reflecting it in the report of this session of the WGIHR.
Thank you co-chairs.

SOURCE: apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-5.html

• ThePeoplesDeclaration.com
  
• ExitTheWHO.org
  
• ExitTheWHO.com
  
• StopTheGlobalAgenda.com
  
• StopTheAmendments.com
  
• StopTheWHO.com
  
• ScrewTheWHO.com
  
• MaskCharade.com
  
• RejectDigitalEnslavement.com
  
• HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com
  
• PreventGenocide2030.org
  
• DoorToFreedom.org

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[ExomatrixTV]

• World Hell Organization
• World Hypnosis Organization
• World Homicide Organization
• World Holocaust Organization

We all just say NO to any more WHO interference into Human Health as they are now Corrupt!

Disband the CORRUPT WHO! They are now controlled by 'benefactor' Bill Gates who now pulls all the strings through his 'benevolence' which prioritises his corrupt Policies that further his greedy objectives. Gates stated "The most lucrative investment I ever made is VACCINE"! Join the dots!

Is the Pfizer's injection (they mistakenly call VACCINE) as Safe and Effective as they claim? The DEATHS that follow the DEADLY farce prove otherwise! The 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind!

I believe Covid Vax is an illusion, hurriedly created, with no QC, for profit and to DEPOPULATE the planet to suit the whims of the 'Global Warming' WEF (New World Order = the super-Elite).

The, once trusted, Medical BIBLE, LANCET is now as CORRUPT as Big Pharma! They all now play the 'Shell game' but this time it's DEADLY.

Fauci's 'Gain of Function' experiments means modifying existing viruses to maximise their impact upon humans and then creating a profit source to deal with the evil manufactured diseases. They pretend these expensive useless but dangerous injections are 'VACCINES'!

UK's Office for National statistics conveniently cannot access basic health info like how many 'COVID injected' pregnant that died wear in fact injected with Covid POISON called VACCINE! Nor have they access to how many pregnant women had children with serious health issues following birth! It's Embarrassing the ONS can be so conveniently incompetent!

More Covid lies to boost the numbers and con the gullible or vulnerable into accepting the potentially DEADLY injection. purely to satisfy Pfizer & others' Greed for profits over public health & wellbeing.

'LIABILITY' for INJURIES and DEATHS CAUSED by Injections, they pretend to be "VACCINES", would end the con, people would start to regain natural immunity, Covid would not be a threat and big Pharma (Pfizer & friends) would become BANKRUPT and disappear!

Also, we could all then have access proper proven 'Safe & Effective' anti-viral medicines like ivermectin.

'The Netherlands will deploy additional resources to strengthen the WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE WORLD BANK'S NEW PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS FUND.'

• ezaz.nl/nederland-tekent-global-health-pact

I am VERY WORRIED about this; Whilst we concentrate on the contraptions of The WHO, Klaus Swab visited the Netherlands last week personally. Now suddenly:

"WEF Puppets in The Netherlands 🇳🇱 Signs Global Health Pact"

'At a furious pace, the Netherlands is signing agreements in which it is giving up more and more of its own decision-making power, read sovereignty.

This has especially taken off during the Rutte cabinets. The pact was signed by outgoing Minister Kuipers, which allowed parliament to have little to no influence. The signing fell on the same day Klaus Swab visited Rutte in the Netherlands.

Following the awarding of the WEF FOOD Innovation hub to the Netherlands, in Wageningen, now follows this GLOBAL HEALTH HUB through which the Netherlands is attracting more and more globalist organizations to itself.

According to the ministry, THE GLOBAL HEALTH HUB NEDERLAND IS ESTABLISHED TO BE A FORerunner IN THE ORGANIZATION OF WORLD-WIDE HEALTH CARE.'

I think, whilst many people are nervous about the WHO, Klaus Swab was in the Netherlands last week to sneakily change Geneva for Holland and push things trough! I have the feeling they are shifting the battlefield.

And of course you read in only in Dutch 🇳🇱, DamN Bastards!

this is the piece: ezaz.nl/nederland-tekent-global-health-pact

Contact FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIE, Pepijn Van Houwelingen! fvd.nl 🇳🇱 & fvdinternational.com 🇬🇧 (English 🇬🇧 spoken FvD videos)

I think that the Global Health Hub is doing what the WHO says it wants to do.The WHO tries to be the ethical facade, The Global Health Hub is already doing it. (see my comments below). And I think the Netherlands 🇳🇱 and Germany 🇩🇪 are gutted to become the headquarters of the beast. I hope I am wrong!

• globalhealthhub.de/de/news/detail/global-health-financing

A BETTER WAY TO HEALTH WITH DR TESS LAWRIE

Your World Council For Health Is Countering The Globalist Power Grab – Here’s How!

• drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/your-world-council-for-health-is

[ExomatrixTV]

• H.R. 79: WHO Withdrawal Act - (Silence - Consent!)

[ExomatrixTV]

• While (Almost) Everyone Looks The Other Way, Something Unprecedented In Totalitarian Is Being Prepared:

Everyone is understandably looking in a different direction, but in the meantime something totalitarian is being prepared that is unprecedented in the history of power and humanity, warns theater maker George van Houts.

“Quietly and behind closed doors, the WHO is being transformed into an uncritical world government with absolute power,” Van Houts writes on X.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PQ86dgzduVU

• Totalitarian Power Structure

Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse previously explained why the WHO is part of a totalitarian power structure.

Why is the WHO a totalitarian power structure? The director general can declare a health crisis at the push of a button. Everything the WHO recommends will eventually become mandatory. There is no effective protection of fundamental rights at country level.
The WHO will be the only one to decide what is 'truth' regarding health, including the well-known censorship of discomfort. There is no mechanism of correction or control anymore.

• Horrified mass disapproval

This will lead to human rights violations, no evaluations or corrections and no more separation of powers. This is not discussed anywhere in the public arena, parliaments or media.

If people knew this, they would be shocked and condemn it en masse, Kruse said.

• dutch 🇳🇱 (+ Multi-Language Options). 🦜🦋🌳

--o-O-o--

An international agreement on pandemic prevention and preparedness



Why an international pandemic instrument?

Infographic - The global agreement on pandemics in a nutshell
See full infographic
The COVID-19 pandemic is a global challenge. No single government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics alone.
A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.
Such an instrument would also:

• ensure higher, sustained and long-term political engagement at the level of world leaders of states or governments
• define clear processes and tasks
• enhance long-term public and private-sector support at all levels
• foster integration of health matters across all relevant policy areas

We need to create an environment where every scientist, health worker, and government can band together for a common cause. Working together to build new solutions to protect what is most precious - our health and our lives.
Charles Michel, President of the European Council at World Health Summit, 25 October 2021

What's the purpose of an international agreement on pandemics?

The proposal for an international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response is guided by a spirit of collective solidarity, anchored in the principles of fairness, inclusiveness and transparency.
Neither individual governments nor the global community can entirely prevent pandemics. But the international community needs to be much better prepared and better aligned in responding to possible future pandemics across the entire cycle of detection, alarm and response.
The instrument would set out the objectives and fundamental principles in order to structure the necessary collective action to fight pandemics.
An international convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemics would support and focus on:

• early detection and prevention of pandemics
• resilience to future pandemics
• response to any future pandemics, in particular by ensuring universal and equitable access to medical solutions, such as vaccines, medicines and diagnostics
• a stronger international health framework with the WHO as the coordinating authority on global health matters
• the "One Health" approach, connecting the health of humans, animals and our planet

More specifically, such an instrument can enhance international cooperation in a number of priority areas, such as surveillance, alerts and response, but also in general trust in the international health system.
Infographic - 10 incentives and benefits of an international treaty on pandemics
See full infographic
What are the main potential incentives and benefits?

Better surveillance of pandemic risks

The monitoring of risks and, in particular, knowledge-sharing on new infectious diseases spreading from animals to humans is crucial to the prevention of future pandemics.
This could be achieved through:

• increased laboratory and surveillance capacity required to identify animal diseases in all countries
• enhanced collaboration between research centres globally
• better coordination of international funding for core capacities

Better alerts

Introducing more levels of alert commensurate to the degree of health threats would improve accuracy in communication about public health threats. This would enhance the transparency and legitimacy of restrictive or health-related measures.
Digital technologies and innovative tools for data collection and sharing as well as predictive analytics can support real-time communication and early warnings which should, in turn, trigger a more rapid response.
Better response

Health supplies and services

As demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, global supply chains and logistics systems need to be more resilient to cope with global health threats. All countries should have uninterrupted access to essential supplies, medicines and equipment from anywhere in the world.
Global coordination for effective stockpiling may also ease the pandemic response. The ability to deploy medical equipment and highly-skilled international medical teams on the ground would also represent a step forward in global health security.
Research and innovation

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how critical it is for the scientific community to mobilise quickly and for the industry to be able to rapidly scale up their manufacturing capacity.
A globally coordinated approach to discovering, developing and delivering effective and safe medical solutions, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and protective equipment would benefit collective health security.
The sharing of pathogens, biological samples and genomic data as well as the development of timely medical solutions (vaccines, treatments and diagnostics) are vital in order to enhance global pandemic preparedness.
Better response mechanisms

Inequities in access to vaccines, medicines and diagnostics threaten to prolong pandemics and to take a more serious toll on human life and health as well as on our societies and economies.
The agreement would draw the lessons based on the experience of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), COVAX and other collective instruments developed since the COVID-19 pandemic started, in order to address global needs more equitably in future pandemics.
Better implementation

The resilience of national public health systems is a crucial element in fighting a pandemic. Countries need to be able to rely on their public health systems in order to effectively respond to the break-out of a pandemic. This could be achieved with a more robust country-reporting mechanism, as well as through the more widespread use of joint external evaluations and better follow-up.
Restoring trust in the international health system

The agreement would ensure that there is more transparency, more accountability, and more shared responsibility in the international system.
In addition, it would set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. To redeem citizen trust, concrete measures should be foreseen to improve the flow of reliable and accurate information as well as to tackle misinformation globally.
In the Council

The World Health Organization
The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 with the mandate to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. It has 194 member states, across six regions, and more than 150 offices, and works to achieve better health for everyone, everywhere.

• About the WHO (WHO website)

The Council adopted on 20 May 2021 a decision to support the launch of negotiations for an international agreement on the fight against pandemics within the framework of WHO.

• EU supports start of WHO process for the establishment of Pandemic Treaty: Council decision (press release, 20 May 2021)

The Council adopted on 3 March 2022, a decision to authorise the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
The Commission, for matters falling within Union competence, negotiates the agreement on behalf of the EU, based on the Council's negotiating directives.

Such an instrument would support international efforts to reinforce global health security, in particular on preparedness and response to health emergencies, in light of lessons learnt from the pandemic.

• Council gives green light to start negotiations on international pandemic treaty (press release, 3 March 2022)

During the European Council on 25 March 2022, EU leaders took stock of the work on the future instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response to be adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO).

• European Council, 24-25 March 2022

Background

The proposal for an international treaty on pandemics was first announced by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, at the Paris Peace Forum in November 2020.

We need to go further and learn the lessons of the pandemic. We see that it is absolutely crucial to be able to act more quickly and in a more coordinated way, to ensure that medical equipment is available and to exchange information with each other very quickly in order to protect our citizens as best we can.
Charles Michel, President of the European Council, at the Paris Peace Forum on 12 November 2020

This call for an international treaty on pandemics was also highlighted by the G7 leaders in their statement on 19 February 2021.

• G7 Leaders statement, 19 February 2021

EU leaders agreed to work on an international treaty on pandemics on 25 February 2021.

We are committed to advancing global health security, including by strengthening the World Health Organization and working towards an international treaty on pandemics within its framework.
Statement of the members of the European Council, 25 February 2021

• Statement of the members of the European Council on COVID-19 and health, 25 February 2021

At the World Health Assembly, the 194 members of the WHO have adopted on 31 May 2021 the decision to discuss a new international treaty on pandemics at a special session starting on 29 November 2021.

• Report of the WHO working group for the Special Session of the World Health Assembly (World Health Organization)

On 1 December 2021, the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached consensus to kickstart the process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
An intergovernmental negotiating body was constituted to work on the negotiations. In parallel with the pandemic accord negotiations, governments are also discussing amendments to the International Health Regulations.

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Charles Michel championed the idea of an international treaty on pandemics
World leaders call for new international treaty to improve pandemic response

On 30 March 2021, leaders from all around the world joined the President of the European Council, Charles Michel and the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in an open call for an international treaty on pandemics, drawing from the lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.
Joint call for an international pandemic treaty

• "COVID-19 shows why united action is needed for more robust international health architecture" op-ed article (press release, 30 March 2021)

source

• Sign The Petition: Citizengo.org/en-us/ot/211837-stop-uns-desperate-pandemic-treaty-push
• Dutch 🇳🇱: Citizengo.org/nl/node/211848

[ExomatrixTV]

• Challenging the Pandemic Treaty - Andrew Bridgen Speech at EU Parliament Nederlands:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qNEo_aMNIZQ

Speech at EU Parliament
4 september 2023

Bekijk ook The Powergrab of the WHO - Philipp Kruse
Pandemic Treaty

• Sign The Petition: Citizengo.org/en-us/ot/211837-stop-uns-desperate-pandemic-treaty-push
• Dutch 🇳🇱: Citizengo.org/nl/node/211848

[norman]

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger lays out the horrifying SECRET AGENDA of the UN and WHO - Total enslavement of humanity through a global health dictatorship
Health Ranger Report

https://www.brighteon.com/4d48dab8-d...5-80b32f4340f6

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/4d48dab8-db07-4918-bcd5-80b32f4340f6

[onawah]

US & Canada "Exit the Who" Action Alert
10/13/23
From: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/...m_medium=email

"Americans In Name Only
To my knowledge, ZERO Presidential candidates, ZERO members of the Senate and only 53 members of the House of Representatives have publicly voiced their support for the WHO Withdrawal Act.
JAMES ROGUSKI"


Go to https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/...m_medium=email
to find your Senators contact links, then copy and send the following:
(There is a link there for Canadians as well, towards the bottom of the page.)

"Dear Senator,

I want the United States to #ExitTheWHO.

I want you to submit companion legislation in the Senate in support of House Resolution 79, the

World Health Organization Withdrawal Act.

The sponsor of this legislation, Representative Andy Biggs (AZ-05) has already gained the support of 50+ co-sponsors in the House who also support the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

I want you to simply copy H.R. 79 and submit it as a companion bill in the Senate as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

One more American that wants to #ExitTheWHO."

[ExomatrixTV]

Expert testifies about WHO power grab and worries about sovereignty.
International health regulations under scrutiny during EU Parliament hearing.

By: Frits Corpelijn | Date: October 12, 2023

Philippe Kruse, a Swiss lawyer and outspoken critic of COVID-19 measures, recently testified at a hearing at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, highlighting the World Health Organization's (WHO) efforts to expand its powers and the potential impact on national sovereignty.

Kruse's testimony sheds light on the WHO's proposed pandemic treaty and changes to the International Health Regulations, which have raised concerns about the organization's growing influence.

• Kruse's testimony outlined the alarming changes proposed by the WHO , which could significantly affect the sovereignty of member states and the rights of individuals worldwide.

The WHO reform process, which started in 2021, consists of two main elements: a new pandemic treaty and substantive changes to the existing international health regime.
These legal instruments are currently being negotiated and the final vote by the 194 Member States will take place in May 2024.

Of particular concern is the lack of transparency surrounding these negotiations, as they are being conducted behind closed doors and at an accelerated pace.
This lack of public discourse and oversight raises questions about democratic participation.

With these proposed changes, WHO aims to establish itself as the ultimate authority on all matters related to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
The organization's powers would extend to declaring public health emergencies and implementing measures such as entry restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance and experimental treatments.

The changes also give WHO authority over health-related information, including the right to censor and monitor social communications.

A key issue highlighted in Kruse's testimony is the absence of mechanisms to challenge WHO's assessments or decisions, which could lead to a lack of accountability and checks and balances within the organization's new framework.

In an international context, Kruse highlighted the potential violation of informed consent and self-determination principles, which are fundamental to human rights and democratic values.

This raises concerns about the far-reaching impact of the WHO's reforms on democracy and individual freedoms.

Kruse also discussed the need for immediate action to stop these negotiations and called on citizens to put pressure on their political representatives to protect national sovereignty and democratic principles.

Although Kruse's testimony focused primarily on implications within Europe, it highlights global concerns about the WHO's growing authority and the potential impact on nations and individuals worldwide.

In a separate development, Kruse addressed concerns regarding potential vaccine mandates, citing a recent case in Switzerland where police were used to enforce the vaccination of children against measles.

He pointed out that similar legal and policy shifts could pave the way for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations and other health-related interventions.

Furthermore, he expressed concern about the misuse of media and information to manipulate public opinion, as evidenced by a recent case in which the Swiss public broadcaster, SRG, was criticized for allegedly biased reporting on COVID-19 measures.

The testimonies in the European Parliament and the wider implications of the WHO reform process highlight the need for public awareness, open dialogue and thorough examination of proposed changes to protect democratic values ​​and individual rights in the face of evolving global health regulations ..■

• Video 1. The Powergrab of the World Hell Organisation, to which Kuipers has given our sovereignty. (met Nederlandse ondertitels)
• Video 2. RA Philipp Kruse im AUF1-Gespräch: „Die WHO wird faktisch zur Weltregierung werden“ (Duits talig)

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v3m1gam/?pub=ir01b[B][COLOR=#ff6600][/COLOR][/B][I][/I]

[ExomatrixTV]

• Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger Reveals the Horrifying SECRET AGENDA of the UN and WHO - Total Enslavement of Humanity Via a Global Health Dictatorship:

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger once again explains the WHO coup d'état, the covid and injection scam in an American media since the European media, notably Swiss (the RTS and Heidi News) continue to make fun of her expertise.

• astridstuckelberger.com
• 5G is also discussed 8 min 23 sec in to the video!!!
  

• source

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ANKLLWX0DMQ

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v3pwls8/?pub=ir01b

[ExomatrixTV]

• 10 Minute Rule Bill - Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums) Bill ... PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS AT LEAST TWO TIMES and let it sink in!
  

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nhvr9_KGIzs

On Tuesday 24th October I brought to the House of Commons the Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums) Bill which prohibit Ministers of the Crown from making or implementing any legal instrument which is not consistent with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, unless it has been approved by a referendum; and for connected purposes.

[palehorse]

Digital ID right?

Check this out then

"An anonymous hacker claims to have breached the digital ID numbers, as well as other sensitive personal data, of around 815 million Indian citizens. To put that number in perspective, it is more than 60% of the 1.3 billion Indian people enrolled in the government’s Aadhaar biometric digital identity program, and roughly 10% of the entire global population. Thanks to the breach — the largest single one in the country’s history, according to the Hindustan Times — the personal data of hundreds of millions of Indians are now up for grabs on the dark web, for as little as $80,000."


I can tell you, $80K is nothing for those operating in the underground to getting others false new identification. If you read in the article the authorities in India contacted lots of people to check if their data matched, humm.. now think how the ones who buy data like that does, same process, in order to impersonate someone first thing is to gather as much personal info of that person as possible, a false identity with ID card, Passport/Visas, Drive licensing, address, even bank account.. it all cost lots of money, so as I said $80K is nothing for these people.

This is just the tip of the problem, they have been doing it for decades, it goes from standard credit cards data leak to entire clinical trial data for new drugs (wonder why they want that), you can name it, I am sure this data is available for sale.

Well, here is the thing, this sort of events will become more and more common, there is no such a thing as "state of the art security", when I read taglines like that, it makes me fart out loud.

Folks seriously, I think most people will never learn a thing in this life, this isn't only India, everywhere is the same thing.

I don't know where this specific event has anything to do with the WEF cybersecurity thing.. but when it comes to cyber threats there is still a lot of cowboys out there.

ref.: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023...data-leak.html

[ExomatrixTV]

• **Bombshell Revelation** W.H.O Gets Immunity From Committing What?!
  

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=21f70aqdBT4

On today’s show we will be looking at Trump’s entrance to Madison Square Garden for Saturday night’s UFC fights flanked by an entourage of Tucker Carlson, Kid Rock and Dana White. But that’s not all…MSNBC’s Jen Psaki fear-mongering viewers that Trump’s 2nd term will become like Putin’s Russia…Also joining me is Dr David Martin, a scientist and inventor who has been an outspoken voice on Covid and vaccines, holding big pharma and the WHO to account!

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v3sv0ey/?pub=ir01b

[ExomatrixTV]

• Why is Everyone Concerned About the W.H.O.?

Over the past two years you’ve probably heard about the attempted WHO power grab. Here’s everything you need to know to understand the status today:

Overview:

• The build-out of a massive and expensive global biosecurity system is underway, allegedly to improve our preparedness for future pandemics or biological terrorism. In aid of this agenda two documents are being prepared through the WHO: a broad series of amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) and a proposed, entirely new pandemic treaty.
• A Pandemic Fund a.k.a. financial intermediary fund to aid preparedness worldwide has been established by the World Bank and WHO.
• Multiple names have been used for the new treaty as new drafts are produced, such as: Pandemic Treaty, WHO CA+, Bureau Text, Pandemic Accord, and Pandemic Agreement.
• Negotiations for these documents are being held in secret. The latest available draft of the IHR amendments is from February 6th, 2023.
• The latest Pandemic Treaty draft is from October 30th, 2023.
• Both the amendments and treaty are on a deadline to be considered for adoption at the 77th annual World Health Assembly meeting in May 2024.
• WHO’s principal attorney Steven Solomon has announced that he crafted a legal fig leaf to avoid making the draft amendments public by January 2024, as required by the WHO Constitution.

How Would these Drafts Become International Law?

• A treaty requires a two-thirds vote of the World Health Assembly’s 194 member states to be adopted and is binding only for States that have ratified or accepted it (Article 19 and 20, WHO Constitution). However, it could be enacted into force in the US by a simple signature, without Senate ratification. [See CRS report, “US proposals to Amend the International Health Regulations.”]
• The IHRs and any amendments thereto are adopted by simple majority, and become binding to all WHO Member States, unless a state has rejected or made reservations to them within predefined timeframes (Articles 21 and 22, WHO Constitution; Rule 72, Rules of procedures of the World Health Assembly).
• Last year, however, amendments to 5 articles of the IHRs were considered in opaque committee meetings during the 75th annual meeting, and then adopted by consensus without a formal vote. This process makes it harder to blame individual diplomats for their votes.
• The current draft of the IHR Amendments would allow the Director-General of WHO or Regional Directors to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), or the potential for one, without meeting any specific criteria (Article 12). The WHO would then assume management of the PHEIC and issue binding directives to concerned States.
  • PHEICS and potential PHEICs could be declared without the agreement of the concerned State or States.
  • WHO’s unelected officials (Director-General, Regional Directors, technical staff) could dictate measures including quarantines, testing and vaccination requirements, lockdowns, border closures, etc.
• WHO officials would not be accountable for their decisions and have diplomatic immunity.

What are Some Specific Problems with the WHO’s Proposed Amendments?

• Article 3 of the proposed IHR amendments removes protections for human rights:
  • Struck from the IHR is the crucial guarantee of human rights as a foundation of public health: “The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons…”
  • This has been replaced with the following legally meaningless phrase: “based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence…”
• Proposed article 43.4 of the IHR notes that the WHO could ban the use of certain medications or other measures during a pandemic, since its ‘recommendations’ would be binding:
  • “WHO shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned to modify or rescind the application of the additional health measures in case of finding such measures as disproportionate or excessive. The Director General shall convene an Emergency Committee for the purposes of this paragraph.”
• States’ obligations in the proposed IHR Amendments would include:
• Conducting extensive biological surveillance of microorganisms and people (Article 5);
• Monitoring mainstream and social media and to censor “false and unreliable information” regarding WHO-designated public health threats (Article 44.1(h)(new));
• Taking medical supplies from one State for use by other States as determined by the WHO (New Article 13A);
• Giving up intellectual property for use by other States or third parties (New Article 13A);
• Transferring genetic sequence data for “pathogens capable of causing pandemics and epidemics or other high-risk situations” to other Nations or third parties, despite the risks this entails (Article 44.1(f) (new)).

What are Problems with the Proposed Pandemic Treaty?

All the Pandemic Treaty drafts (as well as the proposed Amendments to the IHR) produced so far are based on a set of false assumptions. These include the following:

• The WHO Constitution states that, “The WHO is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.” Recently, to justify becoming the global director of health, the WHO disingenuously dropped the last word–and began claiming it already was “the directing and coordinating authority on international health.” But it is not and never has been. The WHO has always been an advisory body, responding to requests for help from member states. It has never previously been a directing or governing body with authority to govern member states. Here is the relevant part of its Constitution, on page 2:

• The WHO claims that “international spread of disease demands the widest international cooperation,” which ignores the fact that international spread may be quite limited and able to be managed by local or national authorities; ignores that the most appropriate responses will be determined by the specific circumstances, and not by a WHO algorithm; and ignores that the WHO has limited infectious disease expertise relative to large nation states.
• The claim made by WHO is that nations will be able to retain national sovereignty through their ability to pass and enforce health laws, while they will simultaneously be bound and accountable to obey the directives from the WHO on health. This is contradictory and designed to confuse: if the WHO can impose its public health decisions on member states, it and not the states will have sovereignty over health.
• The tremendous cost and suffering from COVID are being blamed on lack of preparedness. However, the US was spending about $10 billion yearly on pandemic preparedness before the pandemic. Yet we had few masks, gloves, gowns, drugs, etc. when the pandemic struck. Why would we expect a central WHO authority, which relies on vested interests for 85 percent of its funding, to do any better?

• The claim is that lack of equity led to failure to share drugs, vaccines, and personal protective equipment (PPE)–ignoring the fact that no nation had sufficient PPE or tests early in the pandemic, and that it was nations withholding generic drugs from their populations that caused important treatment shortages. Furthermore, now that we know the COVID vaccines result in negative efficacy several months post-vaccination (making recipients more susceptible to developing COVID), it is apparent that nations that were last in line for COVID vaccines and whose populations are mostly unvaccinated have fared better overall than those who received vaccines for their populations. The so-called lack of equity was fortuitous for them!
• The claim is that pandemics invariably arise at the animal-human interface and that they are natural in origin. Neither is true for COVID or monkeypox, the last two declared public health emergencies of international concern, which came from laboratories.
• The claim is that the vaguely defined “One Health approach” can prevent or detect pandemics and ameliorate them. Yet it remains unclear what this strategy is, and there is no evidence to support the claim that One Health offers any public health advantages whatsoever.
• The claim is that increasing the capture and study of “potential pandemic pathogens” will be accomplished safely and yield useful pandemic products, when neither is true. The CDC’s Select Agent Program receives 200 reports yearly of accidents, losses or thefts of potential pandemic pathogens from high containment labs within the United States: 4 reports (and 4 potential pandemics) per week! And this is only within the US.
• Drafts of the treaty and amendments assume that pharmaceutical manufacturers will agree to give up certain intellectual property rights. In fact, neither developing nations nor pharmaceutical manufacturers are happy with the recent treaty proposal on intellectual property.
• The claim is that the UN adopted a Declaration on pandemic preparedness supporting the WHO plan on September 20, 2023. In fact, 11 countries rejected the Declaration procedure and it was only signed by the UN General Assembly president, representing himself and not the UN General Assembly.
• The claim is that the WHO has the legal right to require nations to censor “infodemics” and only allow the WHO’s public health narratives to be shared, yet this violates our First Amendment’s freedom of speech.
• The claim is that health “coverage” (insurance) will automatically provide the world’s citizens access to a broad range of health care, while the primary reason for lack of access to healthcare is the lack of practitioners and facilities, not lack of “coverage.”

Here are some Specific Examples of What is Wrong with the Treaty:

• Article 3, #2. Sovereignty

“States have, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies.”
This language fails to address the issue of the WHO assuming sovereignty for health matters over states through this treaty. It is a disingenuous attempt to grab sovereignty while claiming otherwise.

• Article 3, #3. Equity

“Equity includes the unhindered, fair, equitable and timely access to safe, effective, quality and affordable pandemic – related products and services, information, pandemic – related technologies and social protection.”

However, Article 9, #2 (d) states that parties shall promote “infodemic management,” and infodemic is defined in Article 1(c) as false or misleading information. Article 18, #1 instructs the Parties to “combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation…” In earlier drafts the WHO spelled out that only the WHO’s public health narrative would be allowed to spread.

• Article 4, #3. Pandemic Prevention and Public Health Surveillance

“The Parties shall cooperate with the support of the WHO Secretariat to strengthen and maintain public health laboratory and diagnostic capacities, especially with respect to the capacity to perform genetic sequencing, data science to assess the risk of detected pathogens and to safely handle samples containing pathogens and the use of related digital tools.”

While this section omits incentivizing Gain-of-Function laboratory research (which was included in the earlier Bureau draft) it does direct nations to perform genetic sequencing of potential pandemic pathogens (i.e., biological warfare agents) they find and to safely handle them, which requires high containment (BSL3/4) laboratories. Also in Article 4 is the need to “develop, strengthen and maintain the capacity to (i) detect, identify and characterize pathogens presenting significant risks…” indicating the directive for nations to perform surveillance to seek out such pathogens and study them.

• Article 6, #4. "Preparedness, Readiness, and Resilience"

“The Parties shall establish, building on existing arrangements as appropriate, genomics, risk assessment, and laboratory networks in order to conduct surveillance and sharing of emerging pathogens with pandemic potential, with such sharing pursuant to the terms and modalities established in Article 12.” Article 1 (h) defined ‘ “pathogen with pandemic potential” as any pathogen that has been identified to infect humans and that is potentially highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making it likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans.”

Why does the WHO require nations to go out and find potential pandemic pathogens (a.k.a. biological warfare agents) and supply both biologic samples and pathogens’ genetic sequences to the WHO, where they will be shared with pharmaceutical companies, research centers and academic institutions, as well as possible others? They are also to share the genetic sequences online, where hackers could obtain the sequences and produce biological warfare agents. Yet this behavior is prohibited by Security Council Resolution 1540.

• Article 8, #3. Preparedness Monitoring and Functional Reviews

“The parties shall, building on existing tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system.”

Yet 4 different monitoring systems (“tools”–see graphic below) have been used to gauge nations’ readiness for pandemics and all 4 failed to predict how well they would do when COVID appeared. There is no acknowledgement of the failures of our assessment tools, nor discussion of whether there exist any useful assessment tools. And this begs the question why, if our means of assessing progress against pandemics failed, do we think that similar efforts are likely to be successful in future?

• Article 10, #1 (d). Sustainable Production

“The Parties encourage entities, including manufacturers within their respective jurisdictions, in particular those that receive significant public financing, to grant, subject to any existing licensing restrictions, on mutually agreed terms, non-exclusive royalty-free licenses to any manufacturers, particularly from developing countries, to use their intellectual property and other protected substances, products, technology, know-how, information and knowledge used in the process of pandemic – related product development and production, in particular for pre-pandemic and pandemic diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for use in agreed developing countries.”
This and related sections are probably what make the pharma organization so upset with the current Treaty draft.

• Article 12, #4 (a) i (2) Access and Benefit-Sharing

“Upload the genetic sequence of such WHO PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefits System) material to one or more publicly accessible databases of its choice, provided that the database has put in place an appropriate arrangement with respect to WHO PABS material.”

The treaty requires the sharing of pathogens and the need to identify and upload their genetic sequences online, where they will be accessible. This could also be called proliferation of biological weapons agents, which is generally considered a crime. In the US, “Select Agents” are those designated to have pandemic potential, and the select agent program is managed by CDC and USDA. For safety, CDC must give permission to transfer select agents. Yet the select agent rules are ignored in this WHO Treaty, which demands transfer of agents that could cause a worldwide pandemic. And in an apparent effort to handwave over existing rules, the draft states in Article 12, #8.

“The Parties shall ensure that such a system is consistent with, supportive of, and does not run counter to, the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol thereto. The WHO PABS system will provide certainty and legal clarity to the providers and users of WHO PABS materials.”

• Article 13, #3 (e). Global Supply Chain and Logistics (SCL)

“The terms of the WHO SCL Network shall include: facilitating the negotiation and agreement of advance purchase commitments and procurement contracts for pandemic-related products.”

Advance purchase commitments are contracts that obligate nations to buy products for pandemics in advance, sight unseen. Neither the manufacturer nor the state party knows what is coming, but once WHO issues a pandemic declaration, the contracts are activated and the US government will have to buy what the manufacturer produces. The 2009 swine flu pandemic provides a useful example. Advance purchase commitments led to tens of billions in vaccine purchases in North America and Europe for a flu that was less severe than normal. The GSK Pandemrix brand of vaccine led to over 1,300 cases of severe narcolepsy, primarily in adolescents. Rapid production of vaccines for which profits are guaranteed and liability is waived has never once been a win for the consumer.

• Article 14. Regulatory Strengthening

Nations are to harmonize their regulatory requirements, expedite approvals and authorizations and ensure that legal frameworks are in place to support emergency approvals. This incentivizes a race to the bottom for drug and vaccine approval standards, particularly during emergencies.

Republished from the author’s Substack


Further Reading:
The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Man-Made Pandemics, by Meryl Nass M.D.
What Can Countries Do Right Now to Slow Down the WHO? (PDF Download)
Collected IHR Amendment Drafts
Collected Pandemic Treaty Drafts

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

Author



Dr. Meryl Nass, MD MD is an internal medicine specialist in Ellsworth, ME, and has over 42 years of experience in the medical field. She graduated from University of Mississippi School of Medicine in 1980.

• source

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v3ql588/?pub=ir01b

[ExomatrixTV]

• Rosa DeLauro And Andy Biggs Clash On Amendment To Take Some Funding Away From WHO:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=obDoelDIRcM

n remarks on the House floor this week, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) discussed an appropriations amendment on funding the World Health Organization.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Former Congressman Warns About W.H.O. Plans: 'This Is The Biggest Power Grab In 5,000 Years':

Bill Gates is the second most important donor to the World Health Organization (WHO) after the United States. How is it possible that a billionaire like Bill Gates is in charge of the WHO? That's what former congresswoman Michele Bachmann wonders.

A very small elite makes all the decisions, she noted in an interview with Dr. Drew.

In WHO documents you can read about the so-called Council of the Parties. The council is formed by that small elite and can adopt the global pandemic treaty and amendments to international health guidelines, Bachmann said. “They can hire whatever they want.”

• Dictatorial Power Grab

The Council of the Parties never has to ask countries for permission, she noted. In this way, the small elite can make and change rules whenever they want. Without having to be ratified by all 193 member states. "That is very handy. It is a dictatorial power grab. This is the biggest power grab in 5,000 years.”

That is why she believes it is so important that we continue to pay attention. If they go through with their plans, it will change our lives forever.

• It's crazy

The Council of the Parties sounds like something out of Game of Thrones or a sci-fi movie like Star Wars, Dr. responded. Drew.
“It's crazy,” Bachmann emphasized. “This is probably the worst idea I've ever read. You have to deal with a lot of unsavory types.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mSWeuHKnnmE

• dutch 🇳🇱 (+ Multi-Language Options). 🦜🦋🌳

[ExomatrixTV]

• Urgent Call to Action: Block the W.H.O. "Dystopian Pandemic Treaty" Now:

CitizenGO started this petition toTo the Esteemed Delegates of the Upcoming INB Negotiations - 11/23/2023

The stakes have never been higher in our ongoing battle against the WHO Pandemic Treaty.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has unveiled yet another draft of this alarming proposal, aimed at becoming the primary tool for managing global health crises.

They are looking to become the global health authority before “the next pandemic strikes”, and it’s up to us to stop them.

• This isn't about health; it's about who holds the reins of power in times of crisis.

As they inch closer and closer to finalizing negotiations, we cannot afford to back down.

You have stood right with us on this issue, from the very beginning, and have shown immense dedication and commitment in all our previous campaigns.

• Now, we need your support once again as we enter the final straight.

The upcoming Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meeting set to take place this coming 4-6 December will uncover whether there is “sufficient” global consensus to ratify the Pandemic Accord across member states.

• This could be a groundbreaking moment, that could possibly clear the ground for the Treaty to be ratified in time for the set deadline of May 2024.

The urgency to act is now, as the next Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meeting is just a week from now. Will you sign to oppose this totalitarian power grab? Add your voice by signing our petition today.

The latest draft includes overreaching proposals that extend far beyond simple ‘health management’. Key changes include:

• Expansive Definition of 'Party’ - the term now extends beyond states, potentially diluting national sovereignty.

(g) “Party” means a State or regional economic integration organization that has consented to be bound by this Agreement, in accordance with its terms, and for which this Agreement is in force;

• Permanent Funding Mechanism - This proposal would institutionalize financial support for the treaty's mechanisms.

• Centralized Health Policy Management - The WHO would gain significant authority over global health governance, overshadowing member states' autonomy.

• WHO Autonomy in Declaring Pandemics - The Director-General could independently declare pandemic status, impacting economies and civil liberties.

• Combatting 'False' Information - Vague provisions could lead to restrictions on freedom of expression under the guise of controlling disease spread.

• Gone is the “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” (see below):

• And yes … it’s also LEGALLY BINDING now!

They have doubled down, and are doing everything possible to get this in motion through by May next year.

This is why the upcoming hearing in Geneva is so crucial and will dictate how much confidence there is in the project, come the New Year.

• This work is essential, if we want to halt this push. It is how we build resistance from within.

But to do so we need to be able to count on your support.

That is why I am asking you to please sign our petition ahead of the INB negotiations on 4-6 December, urging delegates to reject the amendments that are being proposed to centralize global health management.

Imagine a world where health policy is centrally dictated, and your health decisions are made by an unelected body with sweeping powers.

Well make no mistake - if the globalists get away with it, it would centralize health governance globally as legally binding.

The treaty's provisions discussed would give the WHO the authority to declare pandemics and manage health emergencies, overriding national policies.

We have a real opportunity to close the year, one-up against our enemies, and stop this madness!

• citizengo.org/en/node/212384 English 🇬🇧
  
• citizengo.org/de/node/212370 German 🇩🇪
  
• citizengo.org/fr/node/212357 French 🇫🇷
• citizengo.org/it/node/212364 Italian 🇮🇹
  
• citizengo.org/nl/node/212348 Dutch 🇳🇱
• citizengo.org/es-lat/node/212355 Spanish 🇪🇸
• citizengo.org/en-ca/node/212359 Canadian 🇨🇦
• citizengo.org/pt-pt/node/212354 Portuguese
• please click on tab "countries" / languages at the top right for much more options!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳