Category Archives: WHO
By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
AVI Yemeni of Rebel News Australia has teamed up with by fellow Melburnian and videographer Rukshan Fernando to expose the upcoming meetings of the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland, and the WHO’s World Health Assembly in nearby Geneva.
Alarm bells were sounded over that latter gathering late in the election campaign, leading Scott Morrison to issue a hasty denial that they would adopt a move at that gathering to give the WHO direct control over the national health policies of member nations via a so-called Pandemic Accord, otherwise known as a treaty.
If resolutions put to the meeting by the old Democrat snake Joe Biden are approved by a majority, the WHO will have exclusive international authority in the case of a pandemic to impose all the rules, including quarantines, lockdowns, obligatory vaccinations and vaccine passports. “It should also be borne in mind that the WHO enjoys immunity, and thus its members cannot be either tried or convicted if they commit crimes. Unelected technocrats will paradoxically have more power than that which citizens confer on their representatives by means of their democratic vote,” The Gateway Pundit reported.
And now that Morrison has been knocked out of power, the chances of the supposed new PM Albanese and his gaggle of green left Climate 200 fake independents backing the Pandemic Accord loom large in the drive for world government and the so-called WEF great reset. Albanese should exercise his better judgment on this because he knows he will have a rebellion on his hands from Day 1 if he doesn’t.
Avi and Rukshan have released preview videos of them on the train to Davos discussing the issues and then walking through Davos, pointing out the obvious hypocrisy around the event – the fake, tarted up shopfronts, the Bank of America and Bloomberg media facilities tacked on to the local hotels, and the sign trumpeting their alleged efforts to reduce the gathering’s carbon footprints.
The WHO’s concurrent meeting with the WEF makes no secret of its totalitarian globalist agenda, which clearly reflects the plans for WHO and corporate control of national health systems. For instance, the first item is “Implementation of the United Nations’ High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth”.
Exactly whose “health employment” and “economic growth” would that be referring to? Nation-states obviously. WHO and global big pharma make the rules and big banks hold the purse strings to fund it all, just like they did during the COVID plandemic.
And then there’s the “Development of universal health coverage systems, particularly in low- to middle-income countries” and the – surprise, surprise – “Global vaccine plan”. Take a bow Billy Gates.
The last two items listed are “Antimicrobial resistance” and “Impacts of climate change on population health outcomes” – all the usual doublespeak for the global control agenda.
We wonder why the WEF and the WHA don’t just get together to stage a joint conference titled “How We Plan to Take Over and Control the Planet”? No, that would be a little too honest don’t you think?
So which Australians are involved in this? The article for Global Voices.org mentions their group looking forward to “high-level meetings with the Australian official delegation, including the Chief Medical Office and the Federal Department of Health” i.e. the Department of Health and Human Services and the Chief Medical Officer – all key players (with the WHO) in the pandemic crimes against Australians.
Letter to the Editor
Yet again, further evidence of meticulous planning and what *they* have had in store for us for some time.
$119 million spent on another ‘vaccine’, expressly Jynneos, which incidentally, Monkeypox was mysteriously added to the smallpox ‘vaccine’ – and approved in 2019 by another Big Pharma giant Bavarian-Nordic.
Bavarian-Nordic have been involved all along with the Convid ‘vaccine’. Flying under the radar.
They are also a member of the Alliance for Biosecurity.
Another ’vaccine’ which they have approved for manufacture transfer was in place for 2020 – 2025.
Yes, through to 2025.
This ‘vaccine’ is for none other than TBE (Tick-borne Encephalitis). BOOM!
As with Lumpy-Skin-disease-Littleproud’s Japanese Encephalitis, this is a disturbingly recurring word.
from D Johnson
by Kev Moore
No Australia is not losing ” sovereignty” to the WHO and China next week.????
Explainer – The Treaty Process in Australia
9 April 2018 |
This explainer sets out the legal process that underpins how a treaty is created under International Law and then incorporated into Australian domestic law. Definitions of key terms related to the treaty process have been taken from the United Nations and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade .
What is a Treaty?
Australia becoming a party to a treaty is a legal process.
The Australian law recognises that a treaty is:
… an agreement between States (countries) which is binding at international law. In some cases international organisations can be parties to treaties. Even if a document is agreed between two or more sovereign countries, it will not be a treaty unless those countries intend the document to be binding at international law. DFAT
Section 61 of the Australian Constitution allows Australia to enter into treaties as an exercise of Executive Power. Treaties are then tabled in both Houses of Parliament.
A treaty is generally tabled after it has been signed for Australia, but before any treaty action is taken which would bind Australia under international law. DFAT
The legal process for Australia to sign, ratify or accede/implement to an international agreement/treaty is set out below:
Signature – agreement in principle, but not legally bound by the treaty.
Ratification – a binding agreement that Australia will implement the treaty. In the case of a multi-lateral United Nations agreement an instrument of ratification prepared by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is deposited with the UN Secretary-General after being approved by the Governor-General in Council.
Accession/Implementation – the Parliament implements the agreement as an Act of Parliament
Example: the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) implements the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
“Entry into force for Australia 1 November 1945”
In force generally
24 October 1945 description
Charter of the United Nations [UN]
Notes and references to published text
Signed for Australia 26 June 1945 by F M Forde and H V Evatt. Instrument of ratification deposited for Australia 1 November 1945. Entry into force for Australia 1 November 1945. Also applies to Norfolk Island.
It may be of interest to know that Australia ratified the full text of the United Nations Charter as a treaty in 1945 and in so doing gave away its sovereignty. Communist “Doc”Evatt and dupe, P.M. Ford signed on behalf of Australia.
Charter of the United Nations, as amended  ATS 1
[ To understand the UN, see the book, “THE FEARFUL MASTER A SECOND LOOK AT THE UNITED NATIONS” by G. Edward Griffin ]
“Government is not reason;
it is not eloquence;
it is force! Like fire,
it is a dangerous servant
and a fearful master!”
The hysterical claim that Australia is set to lose its sovereignty to a World Health Organisation “treaty” the day after the federal election is false.
The United Australia Party started running advertisements on 17 May—just four days out from the election—claiming that the day after the election, the Labor and Liberal parties planned to give China control of “the health of Australians”.
UAP’s 17 May press release asserted:
“Handing control of our nation’s health programs to the pro-China World Health Organisation (WHO) should raise alarm bells for all Australian citizens, says UAP Chair Clive Palmer.”
Palmer went on to claim: “It is a shocking development to learn that the WHO will gain jurisdiction over controlling Australia’s health programs a day after the Federal Election. It is well known that China is a major contributor to and has a high degree of influence over the World Health Organisation. The WHO has been rightly criticised for pro-China bias in the past. It should be concerning to all Australians who value freedom and democracy that our health policies could fall under the influence of communist China.”
And, in a shameless dog-whistle to Sinophobes, in an 18 May email to members, the UAP highlighted that Australia’s representative to the WHO meeting is a professor with a Chinese name. Following this email, memes are circulating on the internet claiming the Australian professor is a “Chinese communist”.
None of Palmer’s claims are true; in fact, he is completely twisting the truth to blame China for something that is in fact an attack on China.
Here is what is actually happening starting the day after Australia’s federal election:
From 22-28 May, the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) will convene in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHA is essentially all of the member nations of the United Nations, meeting to discuss internationally relevant health issues. The WHA sets the rules, agreed to by all member nations, which govern the World Health Organisation (WHO), the UN agency that coordinates global health information, cooperation, and emergency actions.
Aside from the usual issues the WHA discusses, this upcoming WHA will also discuss two extra agenda items:
- Amendments to the WHO’s “International Health Regulations” (IHRs) proposed by the US Biden Administration, which it claims are to “strengthen the ability of the WHO and member states to prevent, detect, and respond to future public health emergencies of international concern”;
- A proposal “for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”, i.e. a global pandemic “treaty”.
In the blizzard of claims blowing around the internet, the two topics above are being confused with each other.
To deal with the treaty first: it is only a proposal. Nothing will be finalised at the WHA that starts the day after the Australian election. The most that will happen is the WHA will continue its preliminary discussions on a treaty, which is at minimum a two-year process. It will be at least 2024 before the finalised wording of a treaty, or convention, or agreement is available for the member nations to vote on at the WHA. And as London’s Telegraph reported on 12 April 2022: “But there are fears that the outcome—which is not due to be presented to the WHA until 2024—could emerge from years of fraught negotiations without any teeth amid significant geopolitical tensions [meaning with China and Russia–Ed.], especially as COVID-19 slips down the priority list.” (Emphasis added.)
So, no treaty will be decided next week in Geneva.
What will be voted on next week is the Biden Administration’s amendments to the IHRs. Clive Palmer has it twisted around, because these amendments are not a plot by China to take over our health, they are an attack on China!
The US amendments are based on the narrative started by the Trump administration in 2020, echoed by Clive Palmer, that China “mishandled” and “hid” the outbreak of COVID, allowing the spread that led to the global pandemic; and that the WHO was complicit, because China “controls” it. This isn’t actually true, but with the sharp deterioration in relations with China in the last two years, this narrative has stuck politically in the USA and countries like Australia. Ironically, anyone who supported the attacks on China over its handling of COVID, such as Scott Morrison’s 2020 call to send in inspectors to investigate, should support these US amendments because they are targeted at China!
The amendments seek to make the WHO less diplomatically sensitive in the way it relates to countries affected by a disease outbreak. Currently, the WHO is very sensitive to member nations’ sovereignty, and it treads carefully to avoid insulting a nation—such as by accusing a nation of causing a global pandemic—not least so it can ensure its experts have access to assess an outbreak. Because the China-haters in the Trump administration were accusing China of deliberately spreading COVID, they cynically twisted the WHO’s diplomatic sensitivity towards China into propaganda that “China controls the WHO”. Unfortunately, Biden has continued much of the Trump administration’s narrative, so the US amendments specifically propose to empower the WHO to unilaterally declare an “actual or potential” public health emergency, without the agreement of the country in which the outbreak has occurred.
Essentially, the US amendments are intended to give the WHO the power to embarrass nations. This does somewhat impinge on nations’ sovereignty compared to how the WHO operates now, but that’s it, however. Once the WHO declares a public health emergency, it can advise, but it cannot dictate how nations respond. It cannot order lockdowns, or forced vaccinations, as some people are claiming (in fact, the WHO is far more cautious about vaccine mandates than what we have seen from Australia’s state governments). And all member nations are able to reject the amendments and opt out of the International Health Regulations.
China is expected to oppose these amendments next week, likely seeing them as a threat to its sovereignty, according to Health Policy Watch on 6 May. This is an irony for the UAP—they are actually on China’s side! – Citizens Party (CEC)
We suggest readers watch Scomo’s video and make up their own minds:
Letter to the Editor
I’m not sure if I have worked it out but the United Nations have a long-term contract with Thuraya satellite phones.
The urban police cars in Queensland have been fitted with Thuraya antennas. Are the UN forces going to compulsory acquire the Australian government vehicles and push the Australian police aside if there is a health emergency after the 22 may 2022 when the Australian government signs the new pandemic WHO legislation that allows the World Health organisation and UN troops to govern Australia in a Health emergency?
I been working on it for 3 days. I noticed the urban police cars are being fitted with Thuraya satellite antennas, seamed strange to me as they have VHF radios with phone capabilities on the GSM network. I went down the rabbit hole and this is my conclusion. Maybe I’m wrong Maybe I’m spot on.
Nearly 1500 fed up Cairns residents turned up today for a rally along the Esplanade finishing in the CBD with election candidates speaking from a podium.
There are 11 candidates contesting the seat of Leichardt held by Liberal Warren Entsch, the architect of gay marriage laws.
Entsch naturally did not attend or did the Labor candidate Elida Faith. No doubt they could have held fears for their safety had they shown up.
The protest was well organised and there were no arrests for unruly behaviour. Police stopped traffic while protesters converged onto the mall area for short speeches from candidates.
All called for the demise of LNP, ALP and Greens describing them as traitors to the people for selling the country out and their police-state Covid responses.
Bob Katter said he would be investigating the prospects of prosecuting Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk for killing off small business and enforcing vaccine mandates.
Every candidate spoke extremely well and it should be comforting that Cairns residents have so many capable independents to choose from on the ballot paper.
It was indeed refreshing to hear from KAP, UAP, One Nation, Informed Medical Options Party, Australian Federation Party and Fusion Party.
Silvia Mogorovich, Informed Medical Options Party
Rod Jensen, Katters Australian Party candidate
by Alison Ryan
To give us an idea of how the WHO might end up misusing this new proposed international “instrument” on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, we can look at the International Health Regulations (IHR), (13) which the U.S. signed on to in 2005.
The IHR is what empowered the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). (14) This is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts.
The IHR allows the un-elected director-general of the WHO to simply declare a PHEIC and, suddenly, all member states have to dance to his tune. It basically grants the WHO dictatorial powers over health policy.
PHEICs have included the phony H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009, the inconsequential Zika outbreak in 2016, the over-hyped Ebola outbreak in 2019, and, of course, the massively exaggerated COVID pandemic in 2020. All of these PHEICs were poorly handled and the WHO was criticized as inept and corrupt (15) in their wake.
So, to summarize, through the IHR, the WHO has already been significantly empowered to dictate global health policy with regard to pandemics, and they used that power to bamboozle the nations of the world into spending billions of dollars on countermeasures, especially drugs and vaccines, that didn’t work very well.
In that sense, the WHO is really just another wealth-transfer instrument. The WHO’s Big Pharma collaborators make billions on the taxpayers’ dime, while the people of the world are left to suffer the consequences of fast-tracked vaccines. Its handling of the COVID pandemic in particular has been unprecedentedly bad, as they were behind the withholding of early treatment with safe medicines worldwide.
As noted by ivermectin advocate, world-class researcher and consultant to the World Health Organization, Dr. Tess Lawrie, (16) the WHO has also claimed the mRNA shots as safe as conventional vaccines, which is nowhere near the truth. Most all available data prove they are the most dangerous drugs ever created. Why would anyone expect the WHO to become less corrupt if given even more power and control?
in January 2022, the U.S. also submitted regulatory amendments (17) that will give the WHO even more power to restrict your rights and freedoms.
May 22 through 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will gather and vote on these amendments to the IHR and, if passed, they will be enacted into international law. These submitted amendments are in addition to the WHO pandemic treaty currently under discussion.
As reported by Health Policy Watch, February 23, 2022: (18)
“Washington wants to fast track a series of nitty-gritty, but far-reaching changes in the existing International Health Regulations that govern WHO and member state emergency alert and response — for consideration at this year’s World Health Assembly, 22-28 May.
The U.S. proposal (19) for major IHR rule changes, obtained by Health Policy Watch, has been a topic of discussion in a series of closed-door meetings of WHO member states, which are considering ways to reform the existing IHR, as well as advancing a whole new WHO convention or other international instrument (20) on pandemic prevention and response …
The U.S. is expected to lead a parallel track of tightly-paced ‘informal’ member state negotiations to reach consensus on an IHR reform resolution for approval at this year’s 75th WHA [World Health Assembly] …”
Bill Gates Builds GERM Team for the WHO
Another clue about what the WHO intends to do with more power comes from its primary funder, Bill Gates. Gates recently announced he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, which he would like to be called the “Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization” or GERM Team.
This team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s purview, and will monitor nations and “decide when they need to suspend civil liberties, force populations to wear masks and close borders”, The Counter Signal reports. (23)
Of course, Gates is also the largest funder of the WHO (when you combine the donations from both his foundation and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance). This and other relationships speak volumes about the corruption still ruling the WHO. At the end of the day, Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate to the world what they must do to make Gates a ton of money. As noted by The Counter Signal: (24)
“Gates’ announcement of the GERM team coincides with the World Health Organization’s drafting of a global pandemic treaty … In the future, the pandemic treaty will not only ensure that member states abide by International Health Regulations but will also put the WHO in the driver’s seat, so to speak. Member states, including the US and Canada, will take their orders directly from the organization.
As Canadian Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis explains:
‘The treaty includes 190 countries and would be legally binding. The treaty defines and classifies what is considered a pandemic, and this could consist of broad classifications, including an increase in cancers, heart conditions, strokes, etc. If a pandemic is declared, the WHO takes over the global health management of the pandemic.
Of even more concern, if this treaty is enshrined, the WHO would be in full control over what gets called a pandemic. They could dictate how our doctors can respond, which drugs can and can’t be used, or which vaccines are approved. We would end up with a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire world … A one-size-fits-all response to a health crisis doesn’t even work across Canada, let alone the entire globe’ …
The next question, then, is how the WHO and Bill Gates would be able to monitor every individual in every country to determine whether enough people are sick to justify locking a region down.
Can We Stop the International Pandemic Treaty?
The World Council for Health (WCH) was among the few that acted quickly enough to submit a comment in opposition of the treaty. Lawrie delivered the WCH’s submission. (29)
Lawrie wrote: (30)
“Despite the lack of notice, many grassroots organizations did what they could to spread the word and the World Council for Health’s #stopthetreaty campaign reached an astonishing 415 million people. Many of you made written submissions expressing your concerns. So many of you in fact, that I hear the WHO’s website crashed on the last day.”
Professor Robert Clancy, a leading clinical immunologist in Canada sent his comment to Lawrie, who included it in her post: (31)
“The proposal to take control of pandemics at a central WHO level is untenable and threatens a global society. I am in receipt of the World Council for Health response, and the superbly summarized view by Dr. Tess Lawrie. These concerns reflect the ‘across the board’ view of most Australian doctors …
The failure to understand the restrictions of systemic vaccination for mucosal infection and the dangers of accumulated suppression that follows mindless booster programs, and failure to interrogate the massive databases regarding adverse events of genetic vaccines are but two of the serious mistakes perpetuated by the WHO …
It is foolhardy to even suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ response to a pandemic crisis across geographic zones characterized by hugely different parameters, could possibly be covered by a central bureaucratic process — the need for local decision making is of prime importance.
The rule of science and the rule of the doctor-patient relationship must determine any response to a pandemic, and current experience where the rule of the narrative has so distorted disease outcomes — supported by the WHO — must make very clear the foolishness of rewarding incompetence and corruption with even greater powers.
I write this as the most experienced Clinical Immunologist in Australia, and a leading research scientist in Mucosal Immunology with a focus on ‘host-parasite relationship.’ Professor Robert Clancy AM FRS(N) MB BS BSc(Med) PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) FRCP(C)”
13, 14 CDC International Health Regulations
15 Corbett Report April 13, 2010
16, 28, 29 Tess Lawrie Substack April 13, 2022
17, 18 Health Policy Watch February 23, 2022
19 WHO Proposal for Amendments to the International Health Regulations January 20, 2022
20, 21 WHO Proposed Method of Work February 21, 202222 INB of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
23, 24 The Counter Signal May 2, 2022
25, 27 Western Standard March 2, 2022
30, 31, 32 Tess Lawrie Substack April 26, 2022
Source: What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty (mercola.com)
From Kev Moore
” MAY 22, 2022 IS THE DATE DESIGNATED TO END OUR NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNTY – OR NOT
ON MAY 22, 2022 – GATES’ EXECUTIVE W.H.O. BOARD WILL CLAIM EMERGENCY POWERS OVER 194 NATION MEMBERS – AND THEN CREATE ONE.”JUST REMEMBER THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS COINCIDENCE THAT MORRISON CALLED THE ELECTION FOR MAY 21.”
THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened. Make sure to watch, and share this everywhere.
More information, and to see all the documents featured in THE PLAN, go to: https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/proof
by Alison Ryan
Now is the time for “sovereign states to exercise the right to repudiate” the WHO Treaty on Pandemic, Preparedness and Response. We need therefore to make our vote count this election by voting for the freedom parties and putting the major parties – Libs, Labour, Nationals, and Greens – in the very last boxes. These have long sold us out to global governance, created illegitimate laws, and aided and abetted the demise of our common wealth.
Take a look at the history of the UN WHO Constitution and its tenets.
CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (1)
THE STATES Parties to this Constitution declare, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, that the following principles are basic to the happiness, harmonious relations and security of all peoples:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.
The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States.
The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.
Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of disease, especially communicable disease, is a common danger.
Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.
The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.
Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.
Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.
ACCEPTING THESE PRINCIPLES, and for the purpose of co-operation among themselves and with others to promote and protect the health of all peoples, the Contracting Parties agree to the present Constitution and hereby establish the World Health Organization as a specialized agency within the terms of Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations.
(1) The Constitution was adopted by the International Health Conference held in New York from 19 June to 22 July 1946, signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Off. Rec. Wld Hlth Org., 2, 100), and entered into force on 7 April 1948.
Amendments adopted by the Twenty-sixth, Twenty-ninth, Thirty-ninth and Fifty-first World Health Assemblies (resolutions WHA26.37, WHA29.38, WHA39.6 and WHA51.23) came into force on 3 February 1977, 20 January 1984, 11 July 1994 and 15 September 2005
respectively and are incorporated in the present text.
Source: Basic documents: forty-ninth edition (including amendments adopted up to 31 May 2019), World Health Organization 2020, page 1
MEMBERS OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (at 31 May 2019)
The Members and Associate Members of the World Health Organization are listed below, with the date on which each became a party to the Constitution or the date of admission to associate membership.
Australia*……………………………………………………………. 2 February 1948
* Member States that have acceded to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies and its Annex VII.
Source: Basic documents: forty-ninth edition (including amendments adopted up to 31 May 2019), World Health Organization 2020, page 227
See: Withdrawal from the United Nations
Proposed Australia withdrawal – Pauline Hanson’s One Nation support Australia leaving the United Nation.https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/one-nation-policies-the-definitive-guide-to-the-views-of-pauline-hanson-and-her-senators-20161017-gs3z1s.html
One Nations says; We are a party that stands for Australia and Australian values. We defend our constitution and stand up against global agendas for the individual rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians.