Unelected and unaccountable globalist medical bureaucrats want complete control over future pandemics through the World Health Organisation.
That’s the view of a former WHO employee Dr. Astrid Stuckelburger, as the proposed new Pandemic Treaty is being discussed, with a view to its full implementation in 2024.
Stuckelburger, who worked for the WHO for 20 years claims to have received information from WHO ‘insiders’ which she believes should cause concern for all.
‘The fact that they [WHO] are suddenly distancing themselves from restrictions is just a game. The last week of January 2022, WHO held an emergency meeting and deliberations in Geneva on expanding its powers to take over all member states in the event of a pandemic and any other form of threat or disaster.
‘WHO wants all member states to sign a new treaty on Covid-19 which expands the 2005 treaty. Once signed by the Ministers of Health, the WHO Constitution (according to its Article 9) takes precedence over a country’s constitution during natural disasters or pandemics.
‘Since the definition of ‘pandemic’ was changed a few years ago (cases based on the PCR test), the can enforce obedience in any country and impose WHO guidelines on the public, which will be mandatory, not just recommended. And that sounds like power over the country and the world.
Pandemic Treaty timeline:
- By 1 March 2022: An intergovernmental negotiating body set up to draft and negotiate an instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
- 2023: The negotiating body will submit a progress report to the World Health Assembly (the decision-making body of WHO).
- May 2024: The proposed instrument will be presented for adoption by the 77th World Health Assembly.
The most concerning aspect of the treaty is the threshold for WHO intervention, which can be a ‘pandemic’ or ‘disaster’. Who decides if there is a pandemic or disaster necessitating WHO intervention? And what accountability for action is available for sovereign states during the period of intervention?
The reasoning advanced by globalists for such a treaty was set out in a paper released recently by the G20, named ‘Multilateralism in times of global pandemic: Lessons learned and the way forward‘:
Individual states cannot effectively manage global public threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic on their own […] overcoming the current health crisis and rebuilding livelihoods can only be achieved through multilateral action on both the economic and social fronts […] The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences have revealed the weakness of the current arrangements for multilateral cooperation. International organizations with the mandate to play leading roles in dealing with international crises have not functioned effectively.
Another organisation involved in the development of the treaty is the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR), chaired by former Prime Minister Helen Clark.
Although the IPPPR claims to be ‘independent’, it was established by WHO. According to its website, one of its missions is:
‘to provide an evidence-based path for the future, grounded in lessons of the present and the past to ensure countries and global institutions, including specifically WHO, effectively address health threats.’
However, IPPPR review and recommendations are likely to rubber-stamp the treaty. In a press release in November last year, the organisation stated its opinion that current multilateral arangements, primarily the International Health Regulations or IHR, are inadequate to deal with fast-moving pandemics.
Dr. Stuckelburger is not the only medical expert to have concerns with the proposed treaty.
The World Council for Health (WCH), a group representing thousands of doctors, medical experts and affiliated organisations in 140 countries have voiced their opposition to the treaty, calling it a ‘power grab’.
An open letter released on 8 March 2022 WCH outlines the organisations concerns with the treaty:
The World Council for Health (WCH), a coalition of scientists, doctors, lawyers, and civil society advocacy organizations, opposes the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s moves to implement a power grab in the form of a global pandemic agreement, while the world’s attention is diverted by the latest crisis.
The proposed WHO agreement is unnecessary, and is a threat to sovereignty and inalienable rights. It increases the WHO’s suffocating power to declare unjustified pandemics, impose dehumanizing lockdowns, and enforce expensive, unsafe, and ineffective treatments against the will of the people.
The WCH believes that the people have a right to participate in any agreement that affects their lives, livelihoods, and well-being. However, the WHO has not engaged in a process of public participation, which is evidence that its priority is capturing more power for itself and its corporate accomplices, than serving the interests of the people. Without an unbiased democratic process, any agreement by the WHO, acting via the United Nations, will be unlawful, illegitimate, and invalid.
Historically, the WHO leadership has failed the people. Among many examples, it approved the injurious H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine for a controversially declared pandemic. Equally, the WHO failed during the Covid-19 chapter as it encouraged lockdowns, suppressed early preventive treatments, and recommended product interventions that have proven to be neither safe nor effective.
The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda, nor enforce biosurveillance. While it receives funding from public sources belonging to the people, it is caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it also receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions and mandates. For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance, contribute over $1 billion a year.
DTNZ is following this developing story. Updates to follow.