International Lawyers Versus the WHO
International Lawyers Versus the WHO
On July 3, 2023, lawyers from at least ten countries published a press release voicing their opposition the the proposed WHO CA+ and the amendments to the International Health Regulations.
TAKE ACTION WORLDWIDE: ExitTheWHO.org
AFAEV.eu
https://twitter.com/RA_MarkusHaintz/status/1676523931258216448
The articles below were first published in German on AFAEV.eu
May 25, 2023
The alternative media are hotly discussing the WHO Pandemic Treaty and the danger it poses to our fundamental rights and how it restricts our freedoms, e.g
https://tkp.at/2022/12/17/aus-neuen-who-gesundheitsverbindungen-let-human-rights-and-basic-freedoms/
Current events make it necessary to act.
Here is a comprehensive introduction to this topic from a legal policy point of view.
On May 12, 2023, the members of the Bundestag voted almost unanimously in favor of a motion for a resolution by the traffic light groups (20/6712), which calls for a "sustainable strengthening of the WHO" through reforms to strengthen its "governance", efficiency, independence, capacity, accountability and Enforcement of rules" should be promoted so that the WHO can assume its "leading role in global health policy". This motion also calls for "political, personal and financial support up to an "increase in the mandatory contributions of the member countries to a share of 50 percent of the core budget of the WHO by 2030/2031 at the latest". This with an annual budget of 50 billion dollars now demanded by the WHO.
The rationale for the unconditional support of the WHO treaties:
In the opinion of our responsible politicians, we were not sufficiently prepared for the pandemic. That's why it hit us so hard. Only by transferring responsibility and centralizing powers to an organization like the WHO can the global threat be successfully countered.
The vote on the Zero drafts will take place from 21.05. to 28.05.2023 in Geneva, and Mr. Lauterbach will therefore take part in the deliberations with a strong mandate from the Federal Government.
From the point of view of the Hippocratic Oath Medical Association, this situation is unacceptable for the following reasons:
1. Who or what is the WHO
The WHO was founded in 1948 as a sub-organization of the UN and is financed by the membership fees of the participating countries. The organization was founded to promote the "highest possible level of health" worldwide. Its mission was to promote the democratization of medicine by empowering communities and individuals to take responsibility for their health.
At least since the Club of Rome's report in 1972, a society whose background is worth examining, population growth and resource consumption have been identified as the main problem. The forecasts, which even back then were only based on computer programs with model calculations, were never seriously questioned and have become the (false) core of today's environmental movement.
The WHO then started the first birth control programs. The Gates Foundation was already the major donor to these programs.
A separate financing fund, the UNFPA, was set up to finance its numerous programmes. In addition to some governments, the donors here are also private donors, including the Gates Foundation.
In 1978 the concept of voluntary and self-responsibility of the WHO was reaffirmed in the Declaration of Alma Ata.
The USA repeatedly withheld its contributions and the WHO, chronically short of funds, looked around for other donors. She found this in various pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and the Gates Foundation, which was already the second largest donor in 2010. The donations from private donors were all "earmarked". These private influences in relation to the UNO and the WHO were intentional.
2.
As a result, the WHO, which was geared more and more exclusively to combating pandemics through vaccination, declared several pandemics during which governments were asked to purchase and stockpile medicines, face masks, etc. - as early as 2003 when SARS broke out, then with the bird flu.
A crucial turning point for WHO's "work" to not only take care of global health preventively, but also acutely, came in 2009, with the emergence of "swine flu", in which WHO made a change in the definition of a pandemic.
Until then, the essential criteria for assuming a pandemic were that a new, dangerous infectious disease was spreading in large parts of the world at the same time with “enormous illnesses and deaths”, for which people still had no or insufficient immunity.
Shortly before the appearance of the swine flu, the H1N1 influenza on June 11, 2009, the WHO suddenly changed its definition of a pandemic:
“The pandemic phase is characterized by local-level outbreaks in at least one other country in another WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in phase 5 = human-to-human spread of the virus in at least two countries in a WHO region”.
The previous essential criteria of high morbidity and mortality were deleted. Although no real danger could be verified, the then Director General of the WHO, Margaret Chan, declared a pandemic. Here, too, the result was the rapid production and approval of vaccines.
Governments bought in on a large scale, newspapers ran panic reports, and the vaccine Pandemrix was available in 50 million doses.
Conclusion:
Every time a virus appeared, the WHO sounded the alarm, spreading panic and stoking fear in the population.
Every pandemic led to unnecessary expenditure of millions, in the case of Pandemrix also to severe, incurable vaccine damage in the vaccinated children (narcolepsy).
There was never a correct relationship between benefits and risks. In any case, the declared pandemics represented a failure of the WHO, but always without adverse consequences for them.
3. The "COVID-19 Pandemic"
In October 2019, a simulation took place in a luxury hotel in New York, the first pandemic simulation called Event 201, hosted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the WHO, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and organized by Johns Hopkins University.
In retrospect, it can be seen that this simulation game describes and maps out the exact course of the later COVID-19 pandemic in every detail, right down to the so-called panic paper from the Ministry of the Interior. With the help of the Reuters agency, also a member of the WEF, the first publications were distributed, the PCR test was already prepared, which ensured the number of cases and thus the declaration of the "pandemic". There were no other real parameters, as was shown by the review afterwards.
In retrospect, however, it became known that the virus did not, like Dr. Fauci has repeatedly stated that it jumped from a bat to a human at a wildlife market in Wuhan, but is a mutation from a gain-of-function lab in Wuhan run by China and the United States.
In the meantime, it has also become known that Pfizer is conducting its own research for these purposes.
At this point, reference can only be made to the secret "Pfizer documents" that the FDA was supposed to keep confidential for over 75 years. But the FDA was ordered by a Texas district court to speed up publication. The documents were published on the website of the non-profit organization Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.
Dr. Naomi Wolf and Steve Bannon had a large team of lawyers, scientists, biostatisticians, laboratory technicians and doctors evaluate the documents and have now published them. The “Pfizer documents” total more than 300,000 pages.
The presentation of the results is not possible at this point; we refer to the sources:
In summary, however, it can be said that Pfizer knew from the start that the propaganda, according to which the mRNA spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles do not remain at the injection site, but get into the bloodstream and thus the described side effects up to and including death cause was a willful lie. All the side effects described so far were known, and yet for the most vulnerable groups in terms of side effects, who were themselves least at risk from COVID disease, pregnant women and young people, not only were vaccination recommendations made, but they were forced to vaccinate if they wanted to keep their job or continue studying. This is to be judged more criminally.
4.
In the meantime, numerous scientists, physicians and politicians are asking themselves whether and to what extent pandemics are caused by virus mutations specially produced for this purpose.
The WHO always plays a central role in this. The question arises, what does the WHO get out of it if it actually "encourages" pandemics in any way?
The WHO is an organization with about 9,000 employees. Who finances them? The central office in Geneva, regional offices all over the world, since 2021 also in Berlin and the sub-organizations with more and more programs? As the largest sub-organization of the UN, the WHO has always worked in deficit around the world.
Currently, a total of 4.32 billion US dollars was paid to the WHO in 2022. Of these, 84% were so-called voluntary contributions, where the donors determine how the funds are used and not the WHO.
The largest voluntary donors were the US with $740 million, Germany with $597 million, the Gates Foundation with $390 million and Gavi with $203 million. The EU Commission is in fourth place. US$700 million in compulsory contributions was paid by 194 member countries.
The WHO recorded $3.8 billion in expenditure in 2022. More than 1/3 was used for "contractual services". The main focus is on hiring "experts" and other "service providers" to help WHO implement its programs. A first check has shown that there is no detailed accounting for this.
A second third is spent on WHO's 8,851 staff, who earn an average of $120,000 a year. In comparison, the 511 million for "medical supplies and supplies" seems relatively small.
In 2020, the Deutsche Apothekenzeitung criticized the fact that only a small part of the WHO budget consists of mandatory contributions from the member states and thus money that the WHO can dispose of "freely" from exerting any influence. However, the private donors who provide 80% of WHO's revenue (oligarchs and corporations) determine exactly what their cash donations are used for.
The WHO is thus demonstrably no longer independent.
In addition, Bill Gates and his organizations not only support the WHO itself, but numerous WHO aid programs, especially in developing countries. The foundation holds financial stakes in numerous pharmaceutical companies and medical research institutions.
With the vaccine alliance GAVI (founded in 2000 at the WEF in Davos), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation holds 20% of the funding for the WHO.
Despite the mistakes made by the WHO in the previous "pandemics", the COVID-19 pandemic has not been dealt with either nationally or internationally, the WHO is still not being held responsible or even criticized by anyone.
This is incomprehensible, but it may be tolerable if the implementation of the WHO proposals and rules at national level is voluntary, as has been the case up to now. No government has to participate in the recommendations of the WHO if it behaves critically. As in the case of monkeypox, for example, the WHO had declared a pandemic here as well.
5.
However, this should change fundamentally.
The WHO, whose greatest failure was the declaration and maintenance of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the subsequent vaccination drama (Pfizer vaccine, with all other mRNA vaccines being affected as well in terms of their actual effectiveness and dangerousness). is actually about to take over a global pandemic regime in the very near future that will override all national laws and human rights.
A kind of "world government" with far-reaching break-through rights, all on the grounds of global health. However, it is no longer about the "right to health" which has been the basic idea of the UNO and WHO, but about the "compulsion to be healthy" with the loss of fundamental human rights.
The politicians of various countries, such as the Federal Republic of Germany or Switzerland, have already given their approval and are working, again largely unnoticed by the general public, on the ratification of the WHO Pandemic Treaty. The current situation was presented above.
The "fact checkers" misinform by denying and thereby concealing the fact that national laws are overridden in the event of a pandemic.
The “mainstream media, or public radio/television, reports almost nothing or incompletely . As with the alleged "pandemic" itself, the citizens who/have to rely on these media are not informed about the concrete contents of the treaties and the resulting consequences for each and every one of them.
The MEPs who had to decide on the “Traffic Light” resolution (20/6712) on May 12, 2023 were obviously not sufficiently informed either.
The facts so far, like everything connected with the WHO, which with its various organizations and connections also represents a kind of octopus, is so complex that only the most important points can be presented. It must be left up to each individual to deepen this information and to research further (and in particular to pass on the results):
6.
The WHO owns the instrument of the "International Health Regulations" (IHR), which were developed in 1971 and then adopted by the 194 member states. These are not just recommendations, but also binding international regulations that the member states have to comply with in an emergency.
However, the principle of voluntariness is a fundamental principle of the UN. Therefore, with a majority of the members of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the health regulations can be declared legally binding for all member states. Nevertheless, there is the possibility for a Member State to evade the obligation if it rejects the scheme or makes reservations within a certain period of time.
These regulations were revised in May 2022. In this case, however, the content of the changes, which have the clear and unambiguous aim of undermining this sovereignty of nations, is questionable:
On January 18, 2022, the US Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR giving WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , a controversial politician, sole control over declaring a public health emergency in a member state, even against the will of the member state. transfer. The control also includes the "regional directors" who are responsible for regional matters.
The Director-General also has the power to ring an international alarm bell by unilaterally issuing an Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).
WHO intends to amend the following articles towards a globalist architecture towards world health surveillance, reporting and management : Articles in question include: 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13A, 15.1, 23, 42, 43.44 para, 1 h, 44 para.2 letter f and para. 3.45, 48.49:
With the changes, the respect and dignity of human rights and the basic freedoms of the person are lost !
the WHO is recognized as the “authority” responsible for public health in the case of ……..;
can the WHO take decisions on "enhanced implementation", for example imposing sanctions?
Creation of a surveillance network and bureaucracy, implantation of the "One Health" principle. That is, by involving other UN agencies, the WHO can extend its jurisdiction to all areas of the planet (wildlife, plants, oceans, ecosystems, livestock, agriculture in addition to human health; more censorship, the new IHS would oblige states to To 'fight' public health disinformation in the media and social media and 'other means of disseminating such information'.
genomic data is shared; Arranging tests, vaccinations for travel, vaccination cards with QR codes; Ordering of various coercive measures for certain persons, such as compulsory vaccinations, prescription of medication as a coercion, quarantine order ("appropriate measures"); Vaccines that the WHO rejects can be banned.
the 48-hour deadline for Member States to respond comes into effect. This can be shortened to 5 hours. Secret sources: WHO does not need to disclose sources on the basis of which it declares a state of emergency, the Director-General can decide on a state of emergency alone, his decision replaces national sovereign powers, changes after the deadline for the member states are no longer possible.
controls the financing, manufacture and delivery of healthcare products;
WHO monitors Member States' spending
the WHO decides on the allocation of health products;
does the WHO oblige Member States to increase production;
Any discussions between countries must be reported to WHO;
governments are obliged to enforce compliance with WHO health measures by all actors, including NGOs;
countries must cooperate with WHO in censoring information that WHO considers false and unreliable;
WHO will strengthen capacities to counter misinformation and disinformation (Annex 1 para. 7),
the Director-General alone decides whether there is a health emergency, no matter where, international or national;
there should be “a secure global digital exchange of health information;
the central data exchange is to be controlled by the WHO;
Governments may consent to the sharing and storage of their personal health information;
WHO can enter into secret deals with non-state actors, negotiate with them and is not required to make full disclosures;
The focus of these regulations is on the manufacture and supply of medicines and not on health, safety and efficacy.
These changes failed at the WHA from May 22nd to 28th, 2022 due to the veto of the African countries and the BRICS countries, Iran and Malaysia.
The commission of the audit committee rejected the proposed changes for the second time on February 6th, 2023.
The change requests are to be negotiated again in the 76th session of the Health Assembly from May 21, 2023.
These regulations put the dictates of the WHO in place of national sovereignty and the rights of the individual. These rights no longer exist.
At the same time, work is being done on the WHO Pandemic Treaty. It has existed since November 2022 as a “conceptual zero draft”
WHO Director-General Tedros A. Ghebreyesus and Executive Director of the WHO Emergencies Program Dr. Mike Ryan describe the upcoming "World Health Assembly Special Session" from 29.11. until 01.12.2021. An international agreement on “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” would be examined there.
In fact, on December 1, 2022, a consensus was reached at the World Health Assembly (WHO's highest decision-making body) to draft and negotiate a treaty that would provide "under the WHO Constitution, the Prevention, Preparedness and Response to a Pandemic Situation". will regulate.
Negotiations took place on March 1 and August 1, 2022. The draft is to be presented at the 76th World Health Assembly at the end of May 2023.
The winners of the corona pandemic are now obvious. Profit for the companies without having to pay for the damage. These are unbelievable in terms of their scope and severity, and new clinical pictures are constantly appearing, such as leukemia in young people, which leads to death within a few hours.
Finally, the One Health topic should be brought to mind again, since the EU has also taken up the cause of it in the meantime. Since the climate has serious effects on "One Health", the program is to be implemented by the WHO together with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). . The WHO is leading the way because, as the corona pandemic has proven, the best way to get people who are afraid of diseases is to give up their fundamental rights.
In its One Health factsheet, WHO also states that the COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system.
The treaty not only grants WHO new surveillance powers, but also recognizes the “central role of WHO” and appoints it the leading and coordinating authority for international health work.
The concrete implementation is also already fixed in writing, but would definitely go beyond the scope of this elaboration.
The CIA foundation WEF also appears here as organizer, agitator and PR agency. One Health's plan is far more comprehensive than anything that has happened so far with Corona and what is planned for the expansion of the binding International Health Regulations.
It should not be overlooked that the EU Commission issued a regulation last autumn that allows it to take the same measures. A health dictatorship similar to that of the WHO can be set up by the EU Commission for a wide range of reasons.
This paper must also be treated separately due to its scope and importance.
We note: In addition to pandemic prevention for self-inflicted pandemics, the WHO should also be strengthened on the issue of the UN "Sustainable Development Goals" and the "climate crisis". The EU is also to be more deeply integrated into the WHO. There is also a clear commitment to "One Health".
The IHR changes will limit the sovereignty of any WHO member state that does not actively oppose them. A single person, the Director-General, can directly influence health policy and citizens' liberties . Countries commit to following the recommendations, which are no longer just suggestions or advice, but binding regulations.
The WHO uses the police and the military of the countries involved. The World Bank and IMF are on board and control a large part of the money supply of all countries.
The enormous expansion of WHO's powers results from the application of its regulations to all health-related matters that can be declared a threat. The Pandemic Treaty extends the scope of "One Health" to anything that could affect people's physical, mental or social well-being: bad weather, crop failures or the dissemination of misdiagnosed ideas....All of these are addressed under the WHO Treaty Reasons to restrict people against their declared will and against all national laws and to impose on them solutions dictated by others.
This is the reality of the treaties in action. It is a complete departure from the 1978 declaration of Alma Ata, which enshrines an individual right and also an individual duty of human beings to participate, both individually and collectively, in the improvement of human health.
"The COVID-19 pandemic" in particular has shown that the pandemic regime has led to irreparable collateral damage for people and the people.
Everything and always with the only reason: "We were not ready and not prepared enough for the pandemic. That's why it hit us so hard.
Although after the "pandemic" we have endless facts and evidence that it was not a real pandemic but a "plandemic" once again, the WHO is being built with the same bogeyman false claims.
A review of all the rules provided here requires several hours of effort for each reader and brings before us the implementation of the "One World Government" not as a utopia, but as a clear reality written before our eyes.
We no longer have the ability to put this aside as "slander" or "conspiracy theory". It is urgent, the participating countries of the WHO will decide on the draft in the next few days.
We have to start fighting against these forces and structures.
To put it mildly, these rules are unconstitutional.
May 25, 2023
An opinion by Tobias Gall
The WHO Pandemic Treaty and its uncritical support by the German Bundestag is being scandalized across the country in our critical circles and is the subject of manifold warnings of a final loss of sovereignty by Germany and an impending "WHO dictatorship". From a legal and political point of view, however, these warnings seem exaggerated on the one hand and a distraction from the really relevant problems on the other.
The dramatic warnings appear to be exaggerated for (factual) reasons under international and constitutional law: On the one hand, international treaties are already geared towards mandatory binding nature, but a state can object to material non-binding nature without any really substantial consequences, simply deny the application or terminate the treaty . Any infringement proceedings that may follow will not lead to enforcement measures, but will at most have diplomatic consequences. On the other hand, however, every obligation under international law can only be implemented via national state authorities, which in Germany remain bound by the constitutional order, law and justice, even if an international treaty provides for certain legal “simplifications” in this respect.
However, there is still a political scandal – even if it is less likely to lie in the direct relinquishment of national state sovereignty. The people and parties behind the state powers make it clear that they have neither learned from the systematic violation of the rule of law during the Corona period nor have they even recognized the basic problem: If a major problem of any kind (apparently) arises, it can be dealt with precisely not be reacted to in an emergency procedure, above all by asking some experts for solutions that are as simple as they are drastic, which are then not further questioned, but carried out beyond all legal borders.
The Federal Republic in particular is not an epistocracy "of science", which first and foremost provides all crisis solutions with pseudo-moral guidelines that may then never be questioned again. Rather, large and unusual problems require an equally large and extraordinary effort by all social and state authorities who make daily updated diagnoses and forecasts in order to formulate factually and legally suitable and appropriate solutions and to question them again immediately in order to achieve the best possible results.
This means an approach that is completely unsuitable for making politicians appear as omnipotent crisis managers. However, politicians and institutions struggling with the polymorphic-complex reality can prove to be responsible people who have got their positions right.
The majority approval of the German Bundestag for the so-called global health architecture of the WHO Pandemic Treaty shows that German politicians want to continue delegating responsibility and are primarily concerned with how they themselves can avoid responsibility. Politicians who shy away from responsibility and only want to execute the simple decisions of impartial stakeholder committees in order to look good as "doers" instead of dealing with the topics or problems responsibly and responsibly, nobody needs - worldwide.
That we have to hold on to such staff is the real scandal.
https://afaev.eu/souveraenitaetsverlust-oder-systemversagen/
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
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
Fantastic! I am so excited about this event and truly hope that the lawyers are successful in sending the WHO right out of the playing field and not ever be able to return.
Hope