alicespringstomind

This is a long read written by legal academics: The ‘Negotiating Text’ of the new WHO Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness and Response: An Initial Analysis and Underexamined Points of Concern.

In short, World Health Organization are attempting/planning to establish a pandemic industry involving the ‘discovery’ and ‘tweaking’ of pathogens considered to be dangerous to human health. Populations will need to be “protected from” these pathogens via the mass scale-up of pharmaceutical products and laws involving restrictions and compliance, which were practiced during the covid era.

Two different pieces of legislation are being worked on by two separate committees. The existing International Health Regulations (2005) are being amended by the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR). Secondly, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body for the Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument (ie WHO CA+ or “treaty”) are drafting a new “treaty” document, which has been renamed many times over the course of the INB’s work, seemingly in response to continued opposition.

The IHRs form the rules that nations will be required to follow in the event of a public health risk being identified. The “international instrument” or “treaty” establishes the new infrastructure and systems which will ensure nations can implement the IHR requirements.

Both committees consist of bureaucrats from WHO member nations, who are paid by their taxpayers (most of whom have no idea this is happening), to travel to Geneva and sit in rooms negotiating amongst themselves, the text of these pieces of legislation. They are both working to tight schedules, suggesting an urgency to push this legislation through quickly, seemingly because if enough people become aware, forceful opposition will mount.

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) are experiencing disputes on the draft text such that it seems to be in jeopardy. Nevertheless, the work of both committees continues with a view to ending at the World Health Assembly in Geneva in May 2024.

The legislation will introduce a bio-surveillance system with international and domestic components. Nations will be required to build up laboratory capacities to search for “pathogens with pandemic potential”, and collaborate through a global network funded via national taxes channeled into the World Bank and coordinated via the World Health Organization, with distrubution of funds into the corporations providing the personnel and expertise.

Laboratories will be governed by rules including the requirement to share genomic sequences of all discovered pathogens. This is in effect a guarantee that gain-of-function activity will increase across the globe, under far less safety regulations than have been required until now.

Simultaneous to the gain-of-function activities, pandemic-related products connected to the “emerging pathogens” will be produced and distributed based on public health risks and needs (the covid mandates were only a trial-run of what lies ahead). Regulations will require that countries share both their knowledge of “new” pathogens, and their pathogen-related products, under central coordination by WHO. This is the main issue of contention between states, as wealthy nations have large pharmaceutical industry interests to protect whilst poor nations fear pharmaceutical products will be inaccessible.

Capacities, infrastructure and networks involved in pathogenic research and development will expand, and finances will be re-directed away from programs involved in protecting vulnerable populations from the health risks that actually cause harm, towards an intensified bio-security paradigm, with priorities determined by the industry rather than population need. This is the complete dismantling of public health principles based on community engagement, human rights and evidence based practice. The removal of clinical expertise in diagnosis and treatment, as occurred during covid, will see the role of doctors distorted and dismantled and, as occurred during covid, only the most compliant will survive their careers.

The One Health philosophy will underpin all of these activities. This means that surveillance systems will require a focus on the interaction between humans, animals and ecosystems. Farm animals found to be harbouring pathogens will be legally required to be culled, as is already occurring without evidence of actual risk. Laboratory-grown artificial meat will provide the solution to our lost access to natural proteins. Farmers already know this is happening, and they are protesting en masse throughout Europe. History tells us that attacks on farmers lead to mass starvation (Trofim Lysenko and Josef Stalin in Russia, Chairman Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia to name a few).

Blaming human activity for climate change is another aspect of One Health. It will be claimed that new pathogens are appearing due to warmer weather, etc. This will justify movement restrictions, compliance demands and mandates.

In fact, gain of function research, changing the structures of micro-organisms, is the reason that “new” pathogens will appear. World Health Organization’s plans are to upscale gain of function research across the globe, in order to respond to the threat. The planet, animals and humans will also be scoured for existing pathogens, which have never caused a threat before. The opportunities for threats to be identified are infinite.

All of this has been practiced for some decades by those leading the way, such as Jeremy Farrar who took the role of Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization in 2023. These are literally “mad scientists” in positions of unprecedented power, attempting to impose total control.