I AM SO PISSED OFF !
The people who are associated with the World Health Organization are a bunch of deceitful, evil liars.
As per the World Health Organization’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) timeline, the first draft of the proposed “pandemic treaty” is scheduled to be published on August 1, 2022. A second round of public hearings WAS scheduled for June 16-17, 2022.
The above screen capture was taken on June 1, 2022 from http://INB.WHO.INT
Below is a summary of the written contributions to the first round of public hearings which were held April 12-13, 2022:
There were 36,294 written submissions made via the dedicated online portal on the WHO website during the public hearings. In due course, those written submissions will be uploaded and archived on the WHO public hearings webpage.
The majority of written contributions proposed that no international instrument should be established.
There were differences in opinions as to whether a new international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response was required, and if so, its scope and nature.
A number of submissions referred to respect for national autonomy and sovereignty, noting that subnational and cultural bodies, and local health entities were better placed to make health decisions at the national level. Such a focus on sovereignty was justified by the differences in national health systems.
The majority of submissions requested that human rights be respected in the process of drafting and negotiating a convention, agreement or other international instrument, including but not limited to the right to bodily autonomy informed by consent, the freedom of information, the freedom from discrimination, and the freedom to choose medical interventions.
Several submissions referred to international instruments such as the Nuremberg Code, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and the Oviedo Convention and its Protocols.
There were suggestions that the limitation of human rights should be legally justified and conform to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Several submissions suggested that previous definitions of the term “pandemic” should be applied and that the words “with enormous numbers of deaths and illness” should be included. Those suggestions also emphasized that the definition of what constituted a pandemic should be determined by medical professionals, that the medical integrity of health care professionals should be upheld, and that the formulation of infection prevention and control guidelines should uphold the application of the precautionary principle to safeguard health workers.
Furthermore, there was a recognition of the social and economic consequences of a pandemic, including the need to mitigate the adverse economic impacts.
Transparency and accountability were recurrent themes in the written submissions.
Many contributions underscored the importance of using the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as a model for developing a comprehensive accountability structure, notably on conflict of interest, liability, participation of nongovernmental organizations and other members of civil society, and legally binding instruments on business and human rights.
A large number of submissions noted the benefits of people being able to vote on interventions to be adopted by their respective governments, in accordance with the provisions of the WHO Constitution.
They also stressed that feedback mechanisms should be set up and that dialogue and debate concerning proposed interventions should be incorporated into that process.
A number of submissions indicated that WHO should be exclusively funded by governments to the exclusion of private donors
Some submissions also recommended that WHO should disclose sources of funding, especially during a pandemic.
Several submissions stressed the importance of national sovereignty, with Member States having sole authority to make decisions on whether to adopt recommendations made by WHO.
Some submissions placed great emphasis on the amount of scientific data and expertise that would be made available to the public. They called for evidence-based decision-making by WHO for medical and non-pharmaceutical interventions as well as the establishment of a repository of scientific knowledge.
Several submissions also suggested that a steering committee to review WHO’s decision-making process should be set up, composed solely of medically trained professionals.
A number of submissions highlighted the importance of expressly including an obligation for pharmaceutical companies to provide medicines regardless of patent limitations.
They also suggested that action should be taken to: effectively monitor systems for the use of novel therapeutics, publish data from all clinical studies, and widely share vaccine information.
MEMBERS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATING BODY
Ms. Precious Matsoso (South Africa) CONTACT: MatsosoP@who.int
Mr. Roland Driece (the Netherlands) CONTACT: DrieceR@who.int Linkedin
Ambassador Tovar da Silva Nunes (Brazil) CONTACT: DaSilvaNunesT@who.int Linkedin
Mr. Ahmed Salama Soliman (Egypt) CONTACT: SolimanS@who.int
Mr. Kazuho Taguchi (Japan) CONTACT: TaguchiK@who.int
Dr. Viroj Tangcharoensathien (Thailand) CONTACT: TangcharoensathienV@who.int
Dr Viroj Tangcharoensathien:
International Health Policy Programme,
3rd Floor, National Security Reform Office Building,
oi Sataranasuk 6, Tiwanon Road, Nontaburi 11000, Thailand.
Email: viroj@ihpp.thaigov.net
http://www.crehs.lshtm.ac.uk/contact.html
Secretariat for the INB
Ms Jane Ellison, Executive Director, Governance and External Relations CONTACT: EllisonJ@who.int Twitter: @JaneEllison
Dr Jaouad Mahjour, Assistant Director General, Emergency Preparedness CONTACT: MahjourJ@who.int
Dr Timothy Armstrong, Director Governing Bodies CONTACT: ArmstrongT@who.int
Mr Steven Solomon, Principal Legal Officer CONTACT: SolomonS@who.int
Ms Gina Vea, Unit Head, Governance Unit CONTACT: VeaG@who.int Linkedin
Ms Anne Huvos, Unit Head, Pandemic Influenza Preparedness CONTACT: HuvosA@who.int
Dr Olla Shideed, Executive Officer, Emergency Preparedness CONTACT: ShideedO@who.int Linkedin
Mrs Paidamoyo Takaenzana, External Relations Officer, Governance Unit CONTACT: TakaenzanaP@who.int
Dr Claudia Nannini, Legal Officer CONTACT: NanniniC@who.int Linkedin
Mr Kenneth Piercy, Senior Legal Officer CONTACT: PiercyK@who.int Linkedin
Dr Carmen Savelli, External Relations Officer, Governance Unit CONTACT: SavelliC@who.int Linkedin
VOICE YOUR OPINION:
I strongly encourage you to send an email to the following people at least once per day until you get a response to your concerns over the canceling of the public comment period that had been scheduled for June 16-17, 2022. Below is the email that I sent to the members of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body and their Secretariat:
I doubt that I will receive an answer. If I do, I will post it here. I suggest that you start out by sending a polite request for an explanation and then consider what your future responses should be.
ArmstrongT@who.int
DaSilvaNunesT@who.int
DrieceR@who.int
EllisonJ@who.int
HuvosA@who.int
MahjourJ@who.int
MatsosoP@who.int
NanniniC@who.int
PiercyK@who.int
SavelliC@who.int
ShideedO@who.int
SolimanS@who.int
SolomonS@who.int
TaguchiK@who.int
TakaenzanaP@who.int
TangcharoensathienV@who.int
VeaG@who.int
viroj@ihpp.thaigov.net
Tarik Jašarević
Spokesperson / Media Relations
World Health Organization
Mobile: +41 793 676 214
Tel: +41 22 791 5099
E-mail: jasarevict@who.int
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS
https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
ADDITIONAL OPTIONS: Senate and House
Share this information with everyone you know, INCLUDING every member of the alternative and mainstream media.
Express your feelings.
SOURCES:
A/INB/1 (Second resumed session)
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-1-second-resumed-session.html
A/INB/1/1 Rev.2
Provisional agenda
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_1Rev2-en.pdf
A/INB/1/2 Rev.2
Draft programme of work
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_2Rev2-en.pdf
A/INB/1/10
Outcomes of the first round of public hearings
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_10-en.pdf
A/INB/1/11
Proposal by the Bureau of a Member State-led process for the development of a working draft, with possible establishment of subgroups
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_11-en.pdf
A/INB/1/INF./1
Secretariat information paper on the provisions of the WHO Constitution under which the instrument could be adopted
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb1/A_INB1_INF1-en.pdf
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
I’m surprised that the best rebuttal to a unitary WHO led global response wasn’t featured.
Consider the setting. A new pathogen is sweeping the globe.
Does anyone know the optimal response?
NO. By definition, the situation is new so NOBODY KNOWS.
Not the WHO, not any single government.
Is the globe best served by one group guessing the best response, or by many doing so?
MANY.
There’s no better way rapidly to learn best practise than for many simultaneous empirical experiments, maintaining high quality open communication.
Centering a global response in WHO is known, ahead of time, to be close to the worst conceivable approach, which is WHY ITS NEVER BEEN DONE LIKE THIS BEFORE.
It’s obviously a fraudulent way for One World Government to install itself. Wake up. Be blunt. Call the NWO types out & flat out refuse to cooperate on their criminal deeds.
Creating a new vaccine in response to a moderate lethality new pathogen is ALWAYS the wrong approach.
Why?
Public safety is paramount in any public health intervention. More so even than efficacy, because so many people are expected to be exposed to the new vaccine.
The time required to do even the barest job of developing a new vaccine, including even an inadequate longitudinal safety database, will inevitably take longer than the likely duration of any pandemic.
Doubly so if what’s proposed involves new technology.
No one knows the safety profile that will result. It must be determined empirically.
There have been harmful vaccines in the past.
If anyone proposes a new vaccine in response to the alleged next pandemic, decline any involvement & point this note out to everyone you can.