Why is the WHO allowed to threaten Member States into giving up sovereignty?

Which member state will be the first to withdraw from this corrupt Pharma front?

A. On Saturday, I participated in a excellent international lawyers conference on the WHO, its World Health Assembly 77, and the implications of the IHR amendments and a proposed new pandemic treaty. One of 10 lawyers from 9 countries, organised by Philipp Kruse and Renate Holzeisen, I included in my talk the noticeI served on the WHO + the UN on behalf of four NPO’s. The notice was also served on the WHO and the UN by the World Council for Health.

B. You cannot return home until you agree to our demands, or else we will punish your country.

LAWYERS AGAINST WHO (L.A.W) was formed by me (in alignment with CHD Africa) and my Netherlands colleague, lawyer Meike Terhorst. She was in Geneva last week and shared that an Indian delegate to WHA 77 explained that they were being threatened and intimidated to not return home until the IHR 2005 amendments were adopted. They were told not to buy return tickets.

She said “They went to Geneva with a one-way ticket. They were not allowed to return home until they said yes. This is completely unacceptable. It is unlawful “agreement” because no consent was given. It is also undemocratic and colonial.” The Indian Delegation stated that the U.S delegation was pushing for the IHR to be adopted. By stealth or force. This is how the WHO cartel operates.

I was surprised, but not shocked. The WHO, its funders and its beneficiaries are heavily invested in these two agreements (and the ‘public health emergency’ industry) to such an extent, that they would do anything to have them agreed to.

C. Other delegates (and interested parties) confirmed that delegates were threatened.

Here is what I was reliably informed:

1. “Perception is made. There was no agreement. But the delegates are being pressured to sign this agreement today.”

2. Nothing was accepted. The WHO is acting as if they all agreed, and will later try to try to change the amendments. “They are trying to deceive humanity”.

3. “We were told that our countries would be blacklisted, embargoed, and marginalised in front of the mainstream media, and that international travel would be restricted.”

4. “Member states are being pressured and threatened. Nation states said they would not bow to pressure”. Some delegates left the WHA 77 early in protest.

5. “Countries which intervened immediately after the adoption disassociated themselves from the IHR 2005 amendments”. So there was more than one.

D. What is the position of specific member states?

• Slovakia: Delegate told to the World Health Organization: "Slovakia dissociates itself from the entire amendments to the IHR 2005"

• Costa Rica - "dissociates", because "the prolongation & the uncertainty of a potential pandemic treaty will only serve to worsen the existing polarization that affects the well being of my population, and I am responsible for preserving and maintaining their health."

• Iran: "The outcome text of the IHR does not fully address the long standing concerns raised by a number of states and is far from what we expected through this process, namely equity & development related issues. Iran continued: "On the IHR state rights, party rights, notify the DG (director general) of possible rejection or reservation to article 59, 61, 62 of the IHR. Finally we reiterate, that nothing in this resolution should be construed as expanding the authority of the WHO & other international bodies to the detriments of the sovereignty of the state parties".

• Russia: "The Russian party will examine the IHR within our national legislation. We stress the sovereign rights of states to make reservations or reject amendments provided by the constitution & article 61 & 62 of the IHR.

Argentina: "We lament that the amendments which are ample and complex, have been finished at the last moment. We take the decision as a sovereign member of state on 13.4, we would like to repeat our conviction. That on the implementation of a pandemic treaty, it's up to the sovereignty of each member state, to apply it to their legislation to protect their citizens in the way they consider is best and covers their independence and freedom".

* Source for the section D above: Iris Atzmon

What contributed to NO vote being held on the last day of the WHA 77? Countries made clear to the WHO their intentions to object or vote no:

• Belarus: Third Committee A meeting - INB: 57:10
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/19RveIKdNBdA4_Wojwij-Wf1ycOOTdjKJ/view?usp=sharing (English translation)

• Argentina: Third Committee A meeting - INB: 1:21:46

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m_H4zy9emPJ1RhEIz9nbH5pqotUv8cUb/view?usp=sharing

• Argentina: 77 WHA 3rd Plenary Session: 00:19:20

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RnV02dY0eLdrKNMa6igWdTMWi3ecH6mu/view?usp=drive_link

• Argentina: 77 WHA Fourth Committee A meeting - WGIHR - 1:49:22

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s1veKjai9kuinwm7Y5ahU39UPIh57TC2/view?usp=sharing

• Iran: Third Committee A meeting - INB: 1:43:39

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1honXKAhdyKXDbp3qJn-9jqtOUDL4i90D/view?usp=sharing

• Paraguay: The process has not been agreed. All nations must be able to practically implement the requirements and as of now that cannot happen.

• Uganda: There is no need to rush. We have outbreaks that don’t amount to much. We don’t like the process for declaring a public health emergency.

---

Tweet via: @ChikatsuHayashi

The proposed pandemic treaty has been paused
and the WHO wants it to be completed by year end, if not sooner.
A package of IHR 2005 amendments was passed. Please review them.

What is the legal position on the IHR 2005 amendments? My view, in summary:

1. The IHR 2005 amendments adoption process at WHA 77 was unlawful

2. Including article 55(2) violation + the lack of vote on Saturday 1 June 2024

3. Only 37 countries out of 194 expressed support, listed earlier in this article.

4. Other countries objected and were ignored, not recognised or threatened.

5. Coercion is not consent. Member state delegates must pursue legal action.

6. All IHR 2005 amendments must be rejected, and not ratified in national law

Why would member state representatives or governments accept being treated like obedient servants to the thinly-veiled Big Pharma cartel? Where is our dignity and sovereignty? And what are we going to do to resist Orwellian injustice?

---

Here are 6 key actions to be informed and to help the resistance against organised tyranny:

1.1. Serve this critical four-pronged notice on the WHO and the UN

1.2. Serve this key WCH Notice of Liability on the WHO’s employees directly

2.1. Watch CHD.TV episode: Tedros’ Ethiopian Genocide and Kenya’s Infertility.

2.2. Watch this informative film made in South Africa: WHO’s Global Power Grab

3.Read this critical article I wrote last year, stating that the WHO and the UN would impose sanctions to bulldoze these two agreements, why and how.

4. Empower yourself with the 5 international law criteria to lawfully declare a state of emergency, contained in a legal brief from World Council for Health.

3. Offer skills and networks to help us do more. For eg, you can help with content, events, and fundraising, for our work across Africa and the world.
Email:
South Africa: info@THJ-Africa.org.za /
Africa: AF.Shabnam.Mohamed@childrenshealthdefense.co.za /
International: Shabnam@theWC4H.org

---

While I have lost access to my original Substack Take Back Power months ago (and, sometimes also my X account @ShabnamPalesaMo), I will also continue my work here on People Power and my Telegram channel @SPMMedia