The New Boss?
The fastest brass tacks review of the April drafts of the dual pandemic instrument on the internet.
Cui bono?
From the horse’s mouth:
To this effect, the instruments of the Pandemic Agreement (also called the Accord or “Treaty”) and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), form a double envelopment:
(WHO, 2024 Agreement, Article 26)
Alarms
The IHR amendments add “early action alerts” and “pandemic emergencies” to the Director-General’s declarative repertoire, as well as officially defining a “pandemic”, something which the organization had previously found “difficult” (WHO, 2023). (See also: “First PHEIC”.)
A straightforward reading reveals the following taxonomy:
A public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC, is a “risk” that may “potentially” require a coordinated international response.
A Pandemic Emergency is such a risk that is at least considered “likely” to spread and be disruptive.
A Pandemic is a PHEIC that has commenced spreading and being disruptive.
An “early action alert” goes out for an “event,” which is simply “a manifestation of disease or an occurrence that creates a potential for disease.”
Original definition of a PHEIC (unchanged):
New definitions:
(WHO, 2024 Amendments, Art. 1)
(WHO, 2024 Amendments, Art. 1)
Fascinatingly, a plain read of the amended-in text of Article 12, 4ter. seems to imply that an early action alert is to go out for every single sub-PHEIC event.
(WHO, 2024 Amendments Article 12 4ter.)
Given the amount of panic and industrial force such declarations are liable to unleash, some have lamented the degree of additional arbitrariness they put into the hands of what some consider an already “arbitrary and capricious” (Malone, 2023) non-medical doctor.
Pharma
There is too much text relevant to this subject to address in whole. For example, Articles 9 and 10 of the Agreement (WHO, 2024) could have been written by industry in their entirety. Article 11 asks States to non-mandatorily “encourage” entities, “in particular those receiving significant public financing, to forgo or reduce, for a limited duration, royalties on the use of their technology” (WHO, 2024). Indemnity is nonspecifically called for to be “time-bound” in Article 13 (WHO, 2024). Article 14 “Regulatory Strengthening” demands legal facilitation of “emergency regulatory authorizations”. (WHO, 2024)
Notably, the WHO’s PAHO (PAHO, 2024), the CDC (CDC, 2023), the G7 and G20 countries (CEPI, 2022) have already endorsed Gates-founded CEPI’s (as well as Moderna’s (Armstrong 2023)) “‘100 Days Mission’ to compress the time taken to develop safe, effective, globally accessible vaccines against new threats to just 100 days.” (PAHO, 2024) Per Fierce Biotech, “Moderna and CEPI believe the platform could go even faster.” (Armstrong, 2023) The WHO will grant Emergency Use Listing (WHO, accessed 2024), a global standard of product authorization for “vaccination or other prophylaxis” certificates amended into IHR Annex 6 (WHO, 2024), to rapid vaccines whose makers agree to pay it prequalification fees (WHO, accessed 2024).
One Health & PABS
“One Health” has “no shortage” of definitions (One Health High-Level Expert Panel, 2022). Its most concrete product is an ecologically aggressive global biosurveillance regime, including a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System; compulsory global sharing of potentially pathogenic genetic sequence data (WHO, 2024 Agreement Art 1, Art. 12), which has been denounced as bioweapons proliferation by definition (Nass, 2023), but is potentially liable to eventuate panics as a simple product of the calibration of mass tests, as New York Times reporting has implied. (Kolata, 2007) (Mandavilli, 2020)
“caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests… pseudo-epidemics happen all the time.” (Kolata, 2007)
Former WHO scientific and medical officer Dr. Bell predicted that, “what they’re building, in the end, is a system where you have mass surveillance… for variants. They’ll declare a risk, which they’ll find, because this is nature, we see viruses in nature. They’ll lock down, they’ll offer a 100 day vaccine to get out of that, and people will take that.” (Bell, 2023)
Digital Health Passes
IHR Article 35 and Annex 6 are amended to non-mandatorily allot for digital proof of vaccination based on “WHO Prequalification (PQ) procedures… and Emergence Use Listing (EUL) procedures”.
(WHO, 2024 Agreement Art. 35, Annex 6)
Such amendments to the IHR were announced ahead of time at the 2022 G20. (We Tube, 2022) The official G20 Leaders’ Declaration endorsing the certificates would be published by the White House.
Speech & Behavior
IHR Annex 1 calls for “risk communication, including countering misinformation and disinformation” twice. (WHO, 2024 Annex 1)
This is in addition to ongoing in-house WHO “infodemic management”, with an “infodemic” being defined as “too much information,” including “false or misleading information” (WHO, accessed 2024). For this, WHO inked an early contract with Hill & Knowlton (Markay, 2020) (Ross, 2020), the PR firm that notoriously coached “Nayirah” for the false flag testimony that got America into the Gulf war. (Knightley, 2001))
For its part, the Pandemic Agreement focuses on “use of social and behavioural sciences” and “risk communication” (WHO, 2024 Agreement Art. 6, Art. 17, Art. 18).
Some of this is already performed by the WHO’s “Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health” (WHO, accessed 2024), led by Susan Michie , “a leading figure in an independent pressure group that called for Chinese-style lockdowns,” lifelong communist, and member of the UK’s SAGE committee (Boyd, 2022), revealed to have used “grossly unethical” fear tactics on the public (Thorburn, 2022) (Hope, 2022) (Driver, 2022). Michie told Channel 5 in a June 5, 2021 interview she felt measures such as masking and social distancing should continue “forever”. (Boyd, 2022)
Framework Convention
The Pandemic Agreement is set to be a Framework Convention governed by a Conference of Parties that can amend it at a later date. (WHO, 2024 Agreement, Arts 21-31) (Corbett, 2023)
This means that the effectual nature of the agreement is liable to change in the future, once public interest has subsided. This liability may be greatest of them all.
Epilogue
For all its influence, the WHO is still a paper tiger. As Canadian law professor Bruce Pardy, who remains skeptical of the power of international law, points out, countries retain the ability to leave (Roguski, 2024). He argues the issue is really the broad bureaucratic class, who have the same perverse incentives domestically as they do as delegates and WHO staffers (pharma and other malefactors are not limited to transnational treaties), and “seek cover for their own autocratic measures” at home (Pardy, 2024). Withdrawal takes a full year, and Pardy readily admits that there are real consequences for breaching international law (Roguski, 2024), but insists the critical issue remains that, “Local officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties… The danger that confronts us is still our own sprawling discretionary administrative state, soon to be boosted and camouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy.” (Pardy, 2024)
As reality theorist Christopher Langan contends, “Bureaucracies, like corporations, can be regarded as self-perpetuating entities with lives of their own. They are eating us alive in order to perpetuate themselves and fuel their expansion, and the fact that they are controlled by enemies of mankind - the oligarchical elite - adds to their virulence… This is at the very root of our problems.” (Langan, 2024)
It is this deeper propensity and the solution to the moral vacuum that underpins it, of which the WHO and its ostensible power is merely symptomatic, that serves as the subject of the present project’s critical broad-strokes finale, The Root Cure, of more gravity than any other in this exposé.