We told the WHO we don’t want its pandemic treaty – now what?
(Plus, a few words from Australia’s leading epidemiologist)
If the WHO thought it could quietly let its public participation process slip past your attention, it was mistaken. (If you’re not sure what the pandemic treaty is all about, you can read my post about it here.)
As mentioned previously, the WHO gave just five days for people to submit their views on its proposed pandemic treaty. Despite the lack of notice, many grassroots organisations did what they could to spread the word and the World Council for Health’s #stopthetreaty campaign reached an astonishing 415 million people.
Many of you made written submissions expressing your concerns. So many of you in fact, that I hear the WHO’s website crashed on the last day, presumably as a result of too much traffic. One person who quite understandably missed the deadline is Professor Robert Clancy, Australia’s leading Clinical Immunologist. He sent me the comment he’d wanted to submit and has agreed to let me share it with you. Have a read, and then I’ll share with you some good news:
“The proposal to take control of pandemics at a central WHO level is untenable and threatens a global society.
I am in receipt of the World Council for Health response, and the superbly summarised view by Dr Tess Lawrie. These concerns reflect the ‘across the board’ view of most Australian doctors. Certainly, those who have closely monitored control of the Covid Pandemic, and have been largely disenfranchised by bureaucratic decision makers, with little to no understanding of the disease and critical issues modulating clinical outcomes. The failure to understand the restrictions of systemic vaccination for mucosal infection and the dangers of accumulated suppression that follows mindless booster programmes, and failure to interrogate the massive databases regarding adverse events of genetic vaccines are but two of the serious mistakes perpetuated by the WHO.
My fears regarding the WHO taking the mantle regarding pandemic control start with those issues identified by Tess Lawrie. It is foolhardy to even suggest that a ‘one size fits all’ response to a pandemic crisis across geographic zones characterised by hugely different parameters, could possibly be covered by a central bureaucratic process – the need for local decision making is of prime importance. The rule of science and the rule of the doctor-patient relationship must determine any response to a pandemic, and current experience where the rule of the narrative has so distorted disease outcomes – supported by the WHO – must make very clear the foolishness of rewarding incompetence and corruption with even greater powers.
I write this as the most experienced Clinical Immunologist in Australia, and a leading research scientist in Mucosal Immunology with a focus on ‘host-parasite relationship’.
Professor Robert Clancy AM FRS(N) MB BS BSc(Med) PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) FRCP(C)”
I know that, like Professor Clancy, many of you didn’t get a chance to make your voice heard. Well, the good news is, we have another opportunity. According to the WHO, the next round of written and video public participation in the pandemic treaty will take place on 16-17 June.
Please also be aware of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, to be voted on this May at the World Health Assembly. Like the pandemic treaty, this is another move to seize greater powers and override the sovereign laws of individual nations. Some say this is more significant than the pandemic treaty: if voted in, it means the loss of our sovereignty from this November. James Roguski has written extensively about this on his Substack.
There seems to be a concerted effort by the WHO and its controllers to attack our sovereignty from all angles. It is important we make it clear that we do not recognise the WHO as an authority over us and that we will not tolerate this abuse of power. We are sovereign and will not be bound by the undertakings of corrupt officials who pretend to act on our behalf when signing away the inherent rights of the World's People. They do not act for us and we will not be bound.
So yes, we will continue to push back and challenge and say no. But we refuse to let our time and energy be absorbed by just the fight. Rather, we’ll continue to co-create a better way for our beautiful world and its inhabitants: with our partners, our allies and with you.
With that in mind, I want to extend a warm invitation.
This May, the World Council for Health hosts its first Better Way Conference here in Bath, UK. Over three glorious days, we will be joined by some of the brightest hearts and minds to explore new solutions for a better world. The entire focus of the event is on building a positive future and I really hope you can join us, whether in person or online. Tickets are available now. Consider it a break from the fight and an opportunity to get creative, lift your spirits, and be inspired.
When I first discovered you, I quickly ascertained your brilliance. What I miscalculated, because of your soft voice and gentle demeanor, was that you were meek. Then I saw your Zoom call with Andrew Hill. Wow, was I wrong. You are a fierce warrior. A Lioness who demonstrated courage and tenacity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You are a person of great integrity and spirit, and an example for us all. Be well, Dr. Lawrie.
Thank you for being a leading voice fighting this "treaty".
This "agreement" can only make sense to the kinds of criminals who would enjoy running the gulags, and the kinds of people who are easily led in a daze.
It could be decades or centuries before freedom emerges again if this is successful.
Is it all a controlled game already? Let us hope not.