Efforts to create a world pandemic treaty have been in progress, via various international forums almost too numerous to document exhaustively, since at least early 2021 and are intensifying in the wake of the World Health Organization’s 2022 World Health Summit (WHS) held in mid-October 2022 in Berlin, Germany, portions of which—having watched via Zoom link—I covered from just after the half-hour mark in the 17 October episode of UK Column News.
The WHS explored broad topic areas ranging from Food Systems and Health and Digital Transformation for Health to Climate Change and Planetary Health—and those areas were broken down into sub-topics, with the latter one fixated on equating pandemics with the “health threats” posed by “global warming”. Yet the overarching topic, from the standpoint of determining the basic components and timeline for a world pandemic treaty, was Architecture for Pandemic Awareness.
Given the growing body of evidence that the so-called Covid “vaccines”, which actually are mRNA gene treatments and clearly do not fit the conventional definition of a vaccine, are causing widespread harm and death—and since the initial 2020 Covid lockdowns seriously impaired food supplies, healthcare, economic activity, collective worship, family visits, school attendance and other functions of normal society, provoking pushback in many states and territories around the world—top-down enforcement is anticipated in any repeat scenario. A world pandemic treaty is expected to bind all signatory nations to a strict common protocol to fight current and future pandemics.
Such a treaty would mean that individual nations and subnational jurisdictions within them, facing a presumably vastly empowered WHO, would be subject to much more centralized control, making it much harder for nation states to adopt independent policies and maintain constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and medical choice.
The outcome, if recent history is any teacher—especially with regards to how countries like Australia were converted into virtual penal colonies—could be particularly nightmarish. We know from posted Yellow Card (UK) and VAERS (U.S.) government data that adverse effects and deaths after Covid injections have happened and are still happening on a large scale and, yet, little is being done about it. Is the present system of governance to be trusted under the rubric of a world treaty, no matter how rational or benign its framers try to make such a treaty sound?
The WHS workshop in Berlin which most aligned with the proposed world pandemic treaty, held on 17 October, was unsubtly entitled The Role of Parliamentarians in the Development of a Global Pandemic Treaty. Notably, it was UNITE (the Global Parliamentarians' Network) and the German Health Alliance that convened this session, which was chaired by Dr. Juan de Dios Cincunegui of Austral University in Argentina. Speakers included UNITE founder Dr. Ricardo Baptista Leite of Portugal, as well as three delegates from the UK, one of them a parliamentarian: the former N.M. Rothschild & Sons employee-turned-Labour Party MP Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill), who also chairs the Global Parliamentary Network on the World Bank & International Monetary Fund (of which Dr. Leite is vice-chair); Naomi Burke-Shyne, executive director of Harm Reduction International; and Dame Barbara Stocking, chair of the Panel for Global Public Health Convention.
Regarding that 17 October workshop, the WHS organizers noted in an online statement:
UNITE Parliamentarians' Network for Global Health, and the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and IMF led, in 2021, to the creation of the International Forum on Global Health—a working group gathering members from twelve different international Parliamentary Assemblies and Networks worldwide, under a common global health and economic agenda.
The statement added:
In 2022, the working group will focus its work on pandemic preparedness and on delivering a list of recommendations to incorporate in the negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB).
The INB, the statement continues, will work in five main areas:
- Governance and Leadership
- Legislation and National Regulatory System(s)
- Accountability and Oversight
INB’s key role in "pandemic preparedness"
As this UK Column writer noted in a previous article this year on the machinations pointing toward a pandemic treaty, the INB is apparently the key body for treaty development in this policy area.
An 18 May 2022 article—posted online just before the WHO’s 75th World Health Assembly—at the British House of Commons Library outlined, “[t]he WHO is negotiating on pandemic preparedness”, the roots of which go back to March 2021. That was the month when “a group of world leaders”, led by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, “announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response”. From there, “the initiative was taken to the WHO and will be negotiated, drafted and debated by a newly established Intergovernmental Negotiating Body”.
The INB was formally established at the WHO’s second-ever special session of the World Health Assembly in December 2021 to draft and negotiate a WHO convention on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The first round of public hearings took place in April 2022.
The resolve appears strong among those obsessed with putting scores of nations increasingly under a highly regimented single health authority, based on what another WHS workshop described as “One Voice” for a “One Health Strategy”. That particular workshop focused on Europe and noted that its hyper-statist objective:
[. . .] is to adapt and strengthen the European global health policy strategy to better align with One Health priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals [of the UN] [. . .]
A post-Covid-19 Europe must be focused on one health for all and must speak with one voice on global governance for health.
Among the scores of speeches at the WHS Berlin event, former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who now co-chairs the Advisory Board of Our Common Agenda at the United Nations, had this to say:
It is time to transform the global health architecture. We have been through enough. We need action now on a global level.
Other British participants included Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust; and Inger Ashing, CEO of Save the Children International. While Farrar remarked, “It all starts and finishes with communities; if we do not have strong health systems underpinning everything, we will not be able to deal with tomorrow’s challenges,” Ms. Ashing reflected the summit’s broad range of topics by noting:
Covid, climate change, conflicts and the resulting cost-of-living crisis are impacting children on all levels with those most impacted by inequalities and discrimination hit hardest. We’re experiencing a global child-rights crisis.
The term “inequalities”, in the language of globalese in the Covid era, means that some children, somewhere in the world, are not being vaccinated at all, or not as comprehensively—this being an ostensible concern even though, as announced by vaccine skeptic and Informed Consent Action Network founder Del Bigtree during his Sunday speech at the latest Red Pill Expo, held on 12–13 November in Utah, infants, children and teenagers are basically at zero risk of getting Covid-19. In a forceful address that outlined the criminal dimensions of the vaccine industry—with known and suspected vaccine hazards extending well beyond the covid “vaccines” created by Pfizer, Moderna and other government-protected companies—Bigtree cited various data to illustrate that there is no scientifically based reason to give infants and children any kind of Covid jab.
To cite one example, according to the Brownstone Institute, the U.S. Covid fatality rate for those aged 0–19 is 0.0003%, with a survival rate of 99.9997%. Bigtree also noted that while American children generally received 11 vaccines in 1986 during in the first four years of life, that number had swollen to 54 by 2017 for infants and other young people into their teens (moreover, some specific vaccinations required more than one jab). But today, Bigtree, who cited the research of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense, among other sources, said that the grim expectation is the population in the U.S. and beyond will face a major push for “hundreds of vaccinations” by Big Pharma and the governments that the drug industry tends to control.
Given that spectre, and statements by pro-vax Israeli historian and World Economic Forum participating scholar Yuval Harari (as quoted at the Red Pill Expo) that real-time surveillance of humanity is expected to be not just outside the skin but “under the skin” via medical nano-technology to monitor the population’s vital signs and other health aspects practically non-stop, the adoption of a pandemic treaty by a large enough cross-section of nations could represent a tyranny far more deadly than any pathogen.
Meanwhile, the WHO has called “anti-vaxxers” a “global health threat”, while scarcely ever mentioning vaccine risks, even as the Geneva-based organization’s Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus (speaking at the Berlin WHS) seeks an “inclusive” (likely meaning inescapable) world health régime as follows:
Taking global health to a new level means we need a new global agreement based on a common vision, a new global health architecture that is coherent and inclusive, and a new global approach that prioritizes promoting health and preventing disease, rather than only treating the sick.
Yet, while most documentation points to early 2021 as the time at which the notion of a worldwide diplomatic instrument on pandemics was conceived, European Council President Charles Michel gave an early announcement of such a proposed treaty over two years ago at the Paris Peace Forum. On 12 November 2020, he stated:
Everyone is vulnerable when a pandemic strikes. Next time the world must be prepared. Together with [WHO Secretary-General Tedros Ghebreyesus] we have proposed an international treaty rooted in the WHO constitution.
We need to create an environment where every scientist, health worker [and] government can band together for a common cause. Working together to build new solutions to protect what is most precious, our health and our lives. We need to go further and learn the lessons of the pandemic.
We see that it is absolutely crucial to be able to act more quickly and in a more coordinated way, to ensure that medical equipment is available and to exchange information with each other very quickly in order to protect our citizens as best we can.
Some three months later, G7 leaders intensified the treaty-framing efforts significantly in a 19 February 2021 statement, which is worth quoting at some length, littered though it may be with the buzzwords of the language of “globalese”. Notice below that establishing a “turning point” in “multilateralism”—a mode of rule in which leaders, who only are authorized by their electorates and national constitutions to govern their respective nations, instead elect to band together to massage policy collectively at a supranational level—is on par with the supposed “salvation” that such “leaders” are bestowing on humanity via their “vaccine” gambit:
We, the leaders of the Group of Seven, met today and resolved to work together to beat COVID-19 and build back better. Drawing on our strengths and values as democratic, open economies and societies, we will work together and with others to make 2021 a turning point for multilateralism [emphasis added] and to shape a recovery that promotes the health and prosperity of our people and planet.
The above quotation also makes a dystopian mockery of genuine freedom by claiming that the participating nations have “open economies and societies” when, a year or less earlier, those very nations were anything but “open” and “democratic”, being under various admixtures of rule by decree and medical martial law. This does not bode well when such strident commissars are now bent on developing a world pandemic treaty—which evidently will bring about a whole new concept of “openness” and “democratic” values amid the new pandemics that these leaders clearly anticipate will emerge sooner or later.
As can be seen in their following words, very little is being left off the table:
We will intensify cooperation on the health response to COVID-19. The dedication of essential workers everywhere represents the best of humanity, while the rapid discovery of vaccines shows the power of human ingenuity.
Working with, and together to strengthen, the World Health Organisation (WHO), and supporting its leading and coordinating role, we will:
- accelerate global vaccine development and deployment;
- work with industry to increase manufacturing capacity, including through voluntary licensing;
- improve information sharing, such as on sequencing new variants;
- and promote transparent and responsible practices, and vaccine confidence.
“Vaccine confidence” scarcely needs a translation from globalese to English, save to say that resistance to the pandemic treaty, based on jab skepticism will be dealt with by the G7–WHO “machine” whose "rapid response" was pioneered in Britain, although the degree of public skepticism is growing briskly; thus, the treaty’s architects are facing a challenge that they may not be able to meet, provided that the media narrative is commandeered more and more by the likes of UK Column and other reputable new media outlets, coupled with effective citizen activism.
We reaffirm our support for all pillars of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A), its COVAX facility, and affordable and equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, reflecting the role of extensive immunisation as a global public good.
Today, with increased financial commitments of over four billion USD to ACT-A and COVAX, collective G7 support totals seven and a half billion USD. We invite all partners, including the G20 and International Financial Institutions, to join us in increasing support to ACT-A, including to increase developing countries’ access to WHO-approved vaccines through the COVAX facility.
COVID-19 shows that the world needs stronger defences against future risks to global health security. We will work with the WHO, G20 and others, especially through the Global Health Summit in Rome, to bolster global health and health security architecture for pandemic preparedness, including through health financing and rapid response mechanisms, by strengthening the “One Health” approach and Universal Health Coverage, and exploring the potential value of a global health treaty.
Then, on 25 February, 2021, EU leaders agreed to get to work on an international treaty on pandemics, stating in part:
We are committed to advancing global health security, including by strengthening the World Health Organisation and working towards an international treaty on pandemics within its framework.
Towards a 2024 treaty deadline
A highly pivotal event took place on 24 February, 2022 that was listed in WHO documentation as follows:
First meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body [INB] to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Over 2022 as a whole, there have been three meetings in March, two in April, three in May—including the WHO’s 75th World Health Assembly and the 151st session of the Executive Board—then three more WHO gatherings and programs for various purposes in June and one in July. Things intensified in August through October, when six regional committees delivered reports representing Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe, the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, and the Western Pacific.
The Executive Board’s abovementioned session included this statement:
An intergovernmental negotiating body will now be constituted (it reportedly held its first meeting 1 March 2022 to agree on procedures and timelines) and its second [on] 1 August 2022 (to discuss progress on a working draft). It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument [pandemic treaty] by 2024.