Some highlights from WHO’s latest draft Pandemic Treaty
The World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) International Negotiating Body (“INB”) continues to work on a draft that will be accepted by a sufficient number of countries. To be adopted by the World Health Assembly, the INB needs 60 countries to ratify its text.
Dr. Meryl Nass highlights some points from the latest draft of WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, which was published by Politico on Sunday.
The Pandemic Treaty will not only apply to pandemics but will apply at all times, she warned.
Note: The Pandemic Treaty has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Accord, Pandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).
RHODA WILSON
Carefully Examining Parts of the Pandemic Treaty Draft Published
13 April 2025
By Dr. Meryl Nass
[You can also find a link to it in] the Politico article HERE, where it was uploaded.
The yellow highlights indicate areas still to be resolved.
Note below that the Pandemic Treaty will not only apply to pandemics but will apply at all times!
Note further that dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons is explicitly included, while at first, it was removed from the amended IHR. However, the drafters are still trying to fool us. They claim to respect international humanitarian law, but what is that, really? You would have to be a lawyer to know. It is the law of war and ought not to be included here.
The nations have not agreed on how the Global South will receive the benefits promised to them initially. No one wants to be on the hook for paying for them. Pharma does not want to share its know-how to enable local production of medications or vaccines.
Below is a lot of fluffy language that is actually designed to support emergency authorisation or other methods of reduced drug/vaccine regulation (without full testing or licensure) under cover of an emergency so that experimental products can be rolled out on entire populations.
WHO has become a drug/vaccine licensing entity (“prequalifier”), and I was told it used Bill Gates’ staff to do some of this work, so beware this method of fake licensure.
There is also an effort to harmonise regulatory standards internationally: “align … regulatory requirements” which will arguably drop regulation to a low standard.
Here I am happy to see that nations can now leave the treaty after one year, not three, as in earlier drafts.
Remember that dues to belong to the WHO and the treaty are going to be very high, given the loss of the US and hits to GAVI and CEPI, which are major donors. The May World Health Assembly (“WHA”) meeting will have to deal with raising the WHO dues.
[Related:
- What’s next for the World Health Organisation? US exit could reshape agency, Nature, 19 February 2025
- US to stop funding GAVI vaccine alliance, The Telegraph, 26 March 2025]
The cost of complying with the Treaty is never mentioned in the Treaty. Pages 24-25 do a lot of hand-waving about finding new sustainable financing and moving money from elsewhere into the Treaty, but no serious discussion of funding is included. Recall that this Treaty was sold to the Global South as the North paying them to do better surveillance so diseases could be stopped within their borders. Well, that never played out, has it?
Small sums have been provided for nations of the South to conduct One Health exercises as a teaser during the negotiations. I don’t see that continuing.
This section is designed to ease in the EU as a signatory, to enable it gradually to take over from all its member states with respect to future negotiations of the treaty – even though the EU is not a member of the WHO.
It will now come into force one month after 60 nations have ratified the treaty, whereas previously, the drafts asked for 30 and then 40 nations only to ratify before it came into force.
About the Author
Dr. Meryl Nass is a physician and researcher who proved that the world’s largest anthrax epidemic, in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), was due to biological warfare. She had her license suspended for prescribing covid medications that worked. She posts invaluable information on her Substack page ‘Meryl’s Covid Newsletter’ and the website ‘Door to Freedom’. She also occasionally posts articles on a blog titled ‘Anthrax Vaccine’.
Featured image: Intergovernmental Negotiating Body
This article (Some highlights from WHO’s latest draft Pandemic Treaty) was created and published by The Expose and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Dr. Meryl Nass
See Related Article Below
WHO: An Undemocratic Farce
Here are even more reasons why every nation on earth should reject the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations before the July 19, 2025 deadline. The WHO needs to be abolished.
JAMES ROGUSKI
I encourage activists around the world, including in the United States, to share this information with their government officials in order to raise their awareness of a simple and obvious reason why the amendments to the International Health Regulations must be REJECTED before July 19, 2025:
The WHO clearly violated their own rules and did not provide adequate time for member nations to review the proposed amendments.
In alignment with the many, many articles that I have published over the past number of years on this topic, I would like to thank the dedicated attorneys listed below for preparing this document for Action Alliance Free Switzerland (Aktionsbündnis freie Schweiz).
- Jürg Vollenweider, lic. iur., former Leading Public Prosecutor in Zurich
- Philipp Kruse, Attorney-at-Law LL.M., Kruse Law Firm, Zurich
- Andrea Staubli, lic. iur., Attorney-at-Law and former Court Preside
Original in German:
https://abfschweiz.ch/wp-content/uploads/ABF-IGV-Vernehmlassung-26.2.2025.pdf
I would also like to thank Dr. Heike Wiegand for translating the original German document into the English version below:
Consultation and Urgent Appeal for the Rejection of the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) adopted on June 1, 2024, by the 77th World Health Assembly
1. Article 55(2) IHR
1.1 Purpose (“telos”) of Article 55(2) IHR
1 The purpose of Article 55(2) IHR, in the light of an interpretation consistent with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (SR 0.111) and in adherence to the principle of good faith in the fulfillment of international treaties (Article 26 of the Vienna Convention: pacta sunt servanda), is:
2 To provide all IHR contracting states with sufficient opportunity to thoroughly examine the domestic legal, institutional, political, and financial implications of amendment proposals, as well as their compatibility with other international legal obligations, including international and regional human rights regulations.
3 This review should be conducted not based on 308 incoherent and underdeveloped amendment proposals for a working group, but on those that are actually to be discussed and voted on at the World Health Assembly (WHA).
1.2 Procedural Course
4 As of April 17, 2024, only a draft version from 2022 with 308 amendment proposals had officially been available. (6)
5 If the four-month deadline had been adhered to, a consolidated amendment proposal should have been communicated to all contracting states by January 27, 2024, at the latest. This did not happen.
6 It was only on April 17, 2024, that the WHO published, for the first time, a new official and quasi-consolidated version of a Proposed Bureau’s text for the Eighth WGIHR Meeting, April 22–26, 2024. (7)
1.3 Justification for the Deadline Violation
7 The mandate of the WGIHR (Working Group on Amendments to the IHR) from October 23, 2022, instructed the WGIHR in paragraph 6 as follows (8): January 2024: The WGIHR submits its final package of amendment proposals to the Director-General, who, in accordance with Article 55(2), will communicate it to all contracting states for consideration by the Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly.
8 The mandate undoubtedly referred to the proposed amendments to the IHR in their final, negotiated wording, which should have then been formally communicated to the contracting states by the Director-General “in accordance with Article 55(2) IHR” and subsequently reviewed by the WHA.
9 In a resolution proposal submitted by France and others on May 28, 2024, the WHO’s unlawful justification was simply adopted, stating:
(PP6) [Recalling that the Director-General, in fulfillment of the requirement under Article 55(2) of the International Health Regulations (2005), has transmitted all amendment proposals to the International Health Regulations (2005) received in accordance with decision WHA75(9) on November 16, 2022, as well as all iterations of these amendment proposals developed by the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) during its sessions];
10 The emphasized portion of this statement is factually incorrect, as these amendments were not transmitted in accordance with or “in fulfillment of the requirement under” Article 55(2) IHR by January 27, 2024. Instead, they include numerous entirely new wordings and definitions that had never before been notified to the contracting states – some were communicated only two months before or even during the 77th WHA. A cursory comparison of these amendment proposals with those in the IHR-E 2022 clearly shows that they are entirely new in wording. Thus, they could not have been “formally communicated in accordance with Article 55(2) IHR on November 16, 2022.” (9)
11 Furthermore, the new draft of the IHR amendments from May 20, 2024, which was attached to the Director-General’s report A77/9 (dated May 27, 2024) (10), included additional changes that had not been included in the April 17, 2024 draft. Likewise, the final version of June 1, 2024 contained amendments that had never been previously communicated, such as Article 44bis IHR. (11)
2. Violation of the WHO Rules of Procedure
(detailed justification follows in section B.2., N 101-130)
12 The WHA and its participating contracting states not only violated Article 55(2) IHR but also WHO’s own procedural rules:
2.1 Rule 51 of the WHO Rules of Procedure
13 States that the final reports of all committees, including draft resolutions, must be distributed to delegates at least 24 hours before the relevant plenary session, wherever practicable – particularly in cases involving complex and far-reaching new rules affecting the relationship between the WHO, member states, and civil society.
14 The WHA plenary conducted the final vote on June 1, 2024, at 9:07 PM, without presenting a final report containing the voting results (Draft Resolution). Instead, only two brief oral reports were given by the working groups on the Pandemic Treaty and IHR amendments, which served as the sole basis for the subsequent vote in the plenary session.
15 The last properly conducted vote on the IHR revision took place on May 30, 2024, at approximately 10:15 PM in the appropriately designated Committee A. This vote resulted in a clear rejection of the IHR revision, with the following outcome: 26 YES votes, 67 NO votes, 9 abstentions, 177 eligible voters, with 75 absent. (12)
16 On June 1, 2024, at approximately 7:30 PM, Committee A was suddenly reconvened during a surprise interruption of the plenary session, (13) with some members of Committee A evidently no longer present. (14) No quorum verification vote was conducted, as had been done on May 30, 2024. Instead, only a “consensual agreement” was declared:
Chairman: […] “Given the time constraints, I propose that the two remaining agenda items (15) be transferred to the plenary. Is this acceptable to the Committee? I hear a ‘YES’ and no objections. Since there are no objections, it is so decided.” […]
17 As a result, an unexpected vote on the IHR revision took place in the WHA plenary on a version that had been submitted only a few hours earlier, containing previously unannounced amendments. No formal agenda scheduling had taken place.
18 Given the clear negative vote in Committee A on May 30, 2024, and the long and fruitless negotiations of the WGIHR leading up to Saturday evening, neither the Committee A delegates nor the WHA plenary delegates had any reason to expect another vote on the already decisively rejected agenda item “IHR Revision.”
19 All of these circumstances suggest that both the representatives in Committee A and the country delegates in the plenary session were caught off guard and pressured in multiple ways.
2.2 WHO Rules of Procedure – Rule 69
Each member state (contracting party) is entitled to one vote, and votes require the verification of the quorum of present and voting-eligible countries. This was clearly not done during the WHA proceedings.
2.3 WHO Rules of Procedure – Rule 73
20 The voting procedure in plenary sessions explicitly requires voting by show of hands (which could also be conducted electronically).
21 Just as in Committee A immediately beforehand, no formal vote was conducted in the plenary session. There was no prior verification of the quorum and no determination of whether the required simple majority had actually been reached.
22 The IHR amendments were not formally voted upon but were rather adopted by “consensus”:
Chairman: “Is the assembly now ready to adopt the resolution as read? I see no objections; the resolution, including the amendments in document A77/A/CONF./14, is adopted.” (16) (17)
23 Had the procedural rules been properly followed, the IHR revision would not have passed.
2.4 Quorum Determination is mandatory without exception
24 The requirement to verify the necessary quorum for any WHA vote is absolute and has no exceptions (Articles 72-79 of the WHO Rules of Procedure). Even for secret (or electronic) ballots, the quorum must be determined. These clear procedural rules were not followed.
25 The “consensus voting” procedure is not provided for in the WHO Rules of Procedure. Even if it had been used for other decisions in the past, introducing such a method in violation of the organization’s own procedural rules for a decision of such magnitude is entirely unacceptable.
26 This type of voting procedure not only clearly contradicts the WHO’s own procedural rules but is also incompatible with Switzerland’s fundamental democratic principles and public order (ordre public). It represents an undemocratic farce that defies any reasonable democratic sensibility.
3. Summary of serious Procedural Defects
(detailed justification follows in Section B.3., N 131-133)
27 All procedural provisions outlined in Sections 1 and 2 exist to protect the integrity of member states’ decision-making processes and to safeguard democratic procedures within and between states.
28 By disregarding these procedural rules, the adoption of the IHR amendments by the 77th World Health Assembly on June 1, 2024, suffers from such severe procedural defects that it must be considered invalid on formal grounds alone.
Therefore, the IHR amendments must be formally rejected in their entirety by the Swiss Federal Council by July 19, 2025, at the latest (received by the WHO Director-General, in accordance with Article 59(1bis) IHR, final sentence).
The Federal Council must submit an official rejection notice to the WHO Director-General pursuant to Article 22 of the WHO Constitution in conjunction with Article 59(1bis) IHR.
…
For the sake of brevity, I have skipped a number of very interesting sections from the original document. I strongly suggest that the reader download the document and read it in its entirety.
1.6 Conclusion
98 Based on all these findings, we conclude that the failure to notify a consolidated package of amendments by January 27, 2024, was legally untenable.
This constitutes a clear and egregious violation of the procedural norms set out in Article 55(2) IHR. As a result, the IHR amendments should never have been submitted for discussion or adoption at the WHA.
Any other interpretation contradicts the intent and purpose of this legal provision and represents a fundamental breach of law, not only by the WHO but also by the contracting states that disregarded these rules.
99 In this context, it is essential to recall the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which stipulates a treaty in force is binding on its parties and must be performed in good faith (Article 26 – Pacta sunt servanda).
Since Switzerland, like all IHR contracting states, is bound by the IHR, it must ensure full compliance.
If a contracting state identifies a violation – such as the breach of Article 55(2) IHR – it is not only entitled but also obliged to intervene and take appropriate action.
The above English translation, was provided by Dr. Heike Wiegand and is based on the German document linked to below:
https://abfschweiz.ch/wp-content/uploads/ABF-IGV-Vernehmlassung-26.2.2025.pdf
The entire document (English translation) is available here:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
Please help spread the word about the harmful effects of the mRNA bioweapons:
NotSafeAndNotEffective.com
CullingIsMurder.com
PCRfraud.com
MaskCharade.com
StopTheGlobalAgenda.com
I claim no copyright of any kind whatsoever, over any of my work, ever. Everyone is encouraged to copy any and all of it, in part, or in full, and use it for whatever purposes they wish. In fact, I would be delighted if someone were to copy this entire body of work. I encourage everyone to duplicate and mirror it in its entirety. I also encourage everyone to adapt and utilize the information in whatever manner they deem appropriate. No citation or other reference is requested or required. It would actually bring me great joy to see this information multiply exponentially and “go viral”.
All support is deeply appreciated.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
This article (WHO: An Undemocratic Farce) was created and published by James Roguski and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: Getty Images
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply