WHO, stop the 'pandemic treaty'

GPS tracker monitoring plastic in the Po river

MAPP report on the journey of plastic waste in the Po

26 April 2024

European elections 2024, the requests of the European network 'Health is not for sale'

May 25, 2024

Published by Dario Dongo on May 18, 2024

1) WHO – WHO, the 'pandemic treaty'

The 'pandemic treaty', in its already known parts, is characterized by a series of critical issues:

– transfer of sovereignty and decision-making power in health matters to the director general and directors of the six WHO Regions – WHO. An external direction, detached from the democratic procedures established in the member states, will thus be able to impose decisions and control the lives of citizens and their activities (e.g. vaccines, green passes, lockdown), the management of animals and the environment (according to the 'One Health' approach)

– power of WHO – WHO to declare the existence of pandemics (even at macro-regional level) and other emergencies, with wide margins of discretion, so as to activate its 'super-powers' mentioned above, with significant impact on populations

– possible imposition of 'vaccines' obtained with 'fast-track' procedures, even in the absence of suitable tests. Relieving those who produce and administer them from any responsibility, even in the face of evidence of poor efficacy and safety. Or in any case, in defiance of the precautionary principle

– limitation of the possibility for doctors and healthcare personnel to practice their profession in science and conscience. Through the imposition of health protocols and mandatory rules on patient care (e.g. bans on visits in the presence or at the homes of patients).

2) Reform of the International Health Regulations

The reform project of the International Health Regulations is itself problematic in several respects:

– in the event of a 'pandemic', the WHO may impose or ban the use of certain drugs or other measures. Its 'recommendations' will take on a binding nature (Article 43.4)

– references to the protection of fundamental human rights, such as freedom and dignity of the person, are deleted (Article 3)

– Member States will be obliged to develop networks of biolaboratories with biosafety levels BSL3 and BSL4, for the study of 'pathogens capable of causing pandemics and epidemics or other high-risk situations' (art. 44.1. f)

– a 'Conference of the Parties' and a new Secretariat, therefore no longer the Member States, will establish the rules for the functioning of pandemic prevention and response

– censorship offalse information (disinformation) and unreliable', i.e. not aligned with the WHO – WHO narrative, on the threats to public health established by the WHO (art. 44.1.h). This is nothing new, as the European Union has already introduced a censorship regime with the Digital Services Act.

3) Conflicts of interest

The anti-democratic drift under examination features an international organisation, WHO - OMS, in whose financing not only its member states participate, to a variable and uneven extent, but also economic giants (and their philanthropic organisations). Which also operate, among other things, in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors.

Which interests prevail and will they prevail in this global mix? The needs of protecting public health or those of developing and testing new substances on populations? Or again, the social control once prophesied by Richard Bradley in the increasingly current novel 'Fahrenheit 451'?

4) WHO General Assembly – WHO, approval procedures

The adoption of the 'pandemic treaty' it requires the favorable vote of two thirds of the 193 member states of the WHO General Assembly and its application is binding only for those countries that ratify it.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations instead require a simple majority and become binding for all member states of the WHO - WHO, except for those that reject them or express reservations within defined deadlines.

No thank you!

#PaceTerraDignità

Dario Dongo