The globalists that brought us the wildly exaggerated COVID plandemic to cement a digital identity biosecurity grid into place are now hard at work on the next phase of the new world order, a legally binding one health governance pandemic treaty.

WHO Pandemic Treaty Timeline

The proposal for an international treaty on pandemics was first announced by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, at the Paris Peace Forum in November 2020.

At the European Council on February 25, 2021, EU leaders underlined the need for global multilateral cooperation to address current and future health threats. They agreed to work on an international treaty on pandemics within the WHO framework and advance so-called global health security.

The WHO pandemic treaty was conceptualized in March 2021 by Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel when they proposed a global accord akin to that forged after the Second World War.

“The world needs a global settlement like that forged after the Second World War to protect countries in the wake of Covid,” Boris Johnson and other world leaders stated. Writing for The Telegraph, Mr. Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said the virus pandemic had been “A stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.”

The call by 24 world leaders alongside Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the World Health Organisation (WHO) chief, was made in The Telegraph and newspapers across the world, including Le Monde in France, El Pais in Spain, and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany.

The leaders said a treaty akin to the settlement forged in the aftermath of the war was needed to build cross-border cooperation ahead of the next international health crisis, describing Covid as “the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s”.

This call for an international treaty on pandemics was also highlighted by the G7 leaders in their statement on 19 February 2021.

Things moved quickly after 24 world leaders announced an international pandemic treaty to implement the Great Reset agenda. In the joint letter, the leaders argued that a treaty reached in the wake of World War II was needed to build cross-border cooperation, Unity News Network reported. The signatories stated: “At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system.  The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism …”

“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional, and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics,” the leaders declared.

“This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and personal protective equipment.”

 

 

The “One Health” approach would build on the principle of a connection between “the health of humans, animals and our planet.”

The WHO pandemic treaty may serve as a backdoor to a global empire: “Some people think you can take a domestic-only approach to fight a global pandemic. That’s not a thing. You can’t do that. If you are going to fight a global pandemic, you must have a global approach,” – said the White House COVID-⁠19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha.

 

 

The core issue is that no section of society would be exempt from becoming involved in the new treaty, whatever it may turn out to look like, with world leaders pointing out that “We will work with heads of state and governments globally, and all stakeholders including civil society and the private sector.”

On May 31, 2021, the UN health agency’s director-general Tedros said that the ‘time has come for a global pandemic treaty. “The one recommendation I believe will do the most to strengthen WHO and global health security is the recommendation of a treaty on pandemic preparedness and response, which could also strengthen relations between member states and foster cooperation. This is an idea whose time has come,”

“A pandemic treaty would foster improved sharing, trust, and accountability, and provide the solid foundation on which to build other mechanisms for global health security,” said Tedos.

By the way, only two international treaties have previously been negotiated under the auspices of the WHO in its 73-year history: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2003 and the International Health Regulations in 2005.

 

 

Next came a special session of the World Health Assembly between November 29, 2021 – December 1, 2021, from Geneva, Switzerland. The agenda item was for the “Consideration of the benefits of developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response with a view towards the establishment of an intergovernmental process to draft and negotiate such a convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response, considering the report of the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies.”

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the assembly, “It’s essential that we strengthen global (disease) surveillance and provide the World Health Organization with the authority and the capacity to do this important job for all the peoples of the world.”

While Chile’s ambassador Frank Tressler Zamorano said on behalf of 60 countries that a pandemic treaty would help, “Heed the call by so many experts to ‘reset’ the system.”

The idea behind this session of the World Health Assembly, Tedros said, “was to start sketching out a ‘New World Order’ to handle future health crises.”

“We don’t have rules of the game,“ Tedros says of the current situation. “To manage shared problems, like pandemics, you need laws and rules that bring obligations to countries. That’s what we miss.”

He also spoke at the recent World Government Summit in 2022; WHO’s Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reiterated that the COVID-19 pandemic wouldn’t be “the last” one the world faces.

This special session of the World Health Assembly was aimed to start negotiations for a new pandemic treaty. The group may also decide to revamp existing international health regulations.

If a new international treaty is proposed, it could still take years to ratify if history is any guide. Different versions of the proposal will likely be argued over and renegotiated. And each country would need to sign on and push the deal through their domestic treaty ratification process.

During the 41st session of the Corona Investigative Committee, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a whistle-blower from the WHO, said, “the rules under which countries work with WHO virtually put WHO in charge of all rules and formal edicts with Bill Gates unofficially as part of the executive board as if he were a member state.”

On December 1, 2021, the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) formally reached a consensus to kickstart the process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement, or other international instruments under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

On March 3, 2022, the Council adopted a decision to authorize the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The intergovernmental negotiating body, tasked with drafting and negotiating this international instrument, will hold its next meeting by August 1, 2022, to discuss progress on a working draft treaty. It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023 to adopt the instrument by 2024.

“This new international instrument is therefore essential to allow us to respond better in case another pandemic strikes.” – stated Olivier Véran, Minister for Solidarity and Health.

“There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. The question is not if but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess, and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.” – stated Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

We know that previous Government responses to COVID-19 have purportedly violated or manipulated many existing treaties, including the WHO Constitution, International Health Regulations (IHR), and human rights agreements. Claims that noncompliance with the IHR—the treaty most relevant to disease outbreaks. Claims that noncompliance with the IHR—the treaty most relevant to disease outbreaks—requires a pandemic treaty do not explain why a new treaty will generate the commitment that the IHR apparently did not.

Treaty making on infectious diseases last occurred in 2005 after SARS-1 when states radically revised the IHR after the severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis.

In June 2021: in the paper: “Pandemic treaty needs to start with rethinking the paradigm of global health security,” it wrote that a Pandemic Treaty would address gaps in the ‘global governance’ of threats to global health security.

Global Governance is what this treaty is all about. It’s also interesting to note that only about 16 percent of the WHO budget comes from regular membership fees, with the remainder coming from private voluntary donations and heavily earmarked contributions.

 

 

Why The Treaty?

While the exact terms of a future pandemic treaty are still to be hammered out, one aspect that it is expected to cover is the rapid sharing of data about health crises. During a WHO working group on the future treaty, countries expressed support for improving data sharing efforts to detect and share information on outbreaks and pointed to the need to develop appropriate incentives for sharing pathogens or genetic information.

Another aspect of the treaty would likely be equitable access to medical countermeasures, an issue raised by European Council President Charles Michel. Michel, who first proposed a pandemic treaty, said that equitable access to tools like vaccines must be ensured for future pandemics. “We simply cannot allow the same inequality we have seen and continue to see to repeat itself in future pandemics. That is why we must act,” expressed the European Council President.

The WHO states, “No single government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics alone.”

A convention, agreement, or other international treaties will be legally binding under international law.

The treaty will strengthen the following:

1. Early detection and prevention of pandemics
2. Resilience to future pandemics
3. Response to any future pandemics by ensuring universal and equitable access to medical solutions, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, etc.
4. A stronger international health framework with the WHO as the coordinating authority on global health matters.
5. A “One Health” approach, connecting the health of humans, animals, and our planet.
6. Surveillance, alerts, and response
7. The treaty would require new digital technologies and innovative tools for data collection and sharing, as well as predictive analytics that can support real-time communication and early warnings, which should, in turn, trigger a more rapid global response.
8. All countries would have uninterrupted access to essential supplies, medicines, and equipment from anywhere in the world.
9. There would be a Global coordination for effective stockpiling, which may also ease the pandemic response.
10. The ability to deploy medical equipment and highly skilled international medical teams on the ground would also represent a step forward in global health security.
11. A globally coordinated approach to discovering, developing, and delivering effective and safe medical solutions, such as vaccines,
12. The sharing of pathogens, biological samples, and genomic data.
13. The treaty will set the foundation for better communication and information to citizens. Misinformation threatens public trust and risks undermining public health responses. Redeem citizen trust, and concrete measures should be foreseen to improve reliable and accurate information flow and tackle misinformation globally.

Misinformation and conspiracy theories will be stamped on, removed from circulation, and its complete control of the narrative by an unelected global body.

The Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC) said that any treaty must include creating an independent body that assesses government preparedness. This would have a mandate to publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with agreed requirements.

The “one health” approach outlined above would require data-sharing efforts to prevent pandemics. For example, a WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence recently opened in Berlin, backed by an initial US$100 million from Germany, and it aims to pool global disease data and produce tools to predict outbreaks – but it is reliant on countries taking part.

The World Health Organization has launched an effort to speed up disease detection and response by bringing it into the digital age, using advanced computing and international data sharing.

And the EU has already laid out the plan to build a European Health Data Space (EHDS) which could feed into the WHO detection surveillance grid: “Health data are the blood running through the veins of our healthcare systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that up-to-date health data are key to take well-informed public health measures and to respond to crises. The pandemic has also triggered a huge acceleration in the uptake of digital tools.”

If the pandemic treaty were to come into effect in 2024, you could guarantee even higher global health surveillance using real-time sequencing for diagnostics and epidemiology. But, again, this would be based on ever-more portable technologies with increasingly rapid turnaround times.

But don’t just think it will be mRNA injections or intranasal sprays. Or gene-editing technologies based on CRISPR for diagnostics. Think CRISPR to enhance the immune response will likely see an entry. This is a facet of transhumanism, as is digital and biological surveillance. Vaccine patch technology could also be deployed.

To put it in the words of Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, there will be further attempts to fuse “the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.”

Suppose the WHO says every person on the planet needs to have a vaccine passport and a digital identity to ensure vaccination compliance. In that case, that’s what every country will be forced to implement, even if the people have rejected such plans under national democratic processes.

The Pushback Begins:

 

 

The “Pandemic Treaty” may hand the WHO keys to global health governance. Under the new WHO treaty, the WHO could order mandatory vaccines, global digital health IDs, lockdowns, isolation, testing regimes, no-jab-no-job rules, etc., or anything else it decides as policy, irrespective of dissenting national voices.

The globalist cabal wants to monopolize a “one health” standard and systems worldwide, and a stealth attack is already underway in the form of an international pandemic treaty. The WHO cannot be allowed to control the world’s health agenda nor enforce bio or digital surveillance. While it’s caught in a perpetual conflict of interest because it receives substantial funding from private interests that use their contributions to influence and profit from WHO decisions. For example, the Gates Foundation and the Gates-funded GAVI vaccine promotion alliance contribute over $1 billion a year.

Bill Gates is also the largest funder of the WHO (when you combine the donations from both his foundation and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance). This and other relationships speak volumes about the corruption still ruling the WHO. At the end of the day, Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate to the world what they must do to make Gates a ton of money.

Indeed, this “hostile takeover” by the background elites is explained by Christine Anderson MEP here:

 

 

“The WHO is to be given de facto governmental power over member states in the event of a pandemic. The EU Commission will NOT protect its citizens from the possible excesses of such arbitrary rules by the power elites,” – stated the MEP.

Christine Anderson even asked the EU Commission, “To what extent would it ensure that the principles of the people’s rule would be respected and that citizens would not be subjected to the arbitrariness of the WHO.” The answer she received was clear and brief: NOT AT ALL!

 

 

“We as elected representatives by the people for the people must not allow this to happen. I am imploring you do what you were elected to do, investigate this, and protect the rights of the people,” stated MEP Anderson.

 

 

“The WHO will be handed over all executive powers of a national government in a case of a pandemic. So, we have a body who is not democratically elected who is not accountable to anyone who will oversee governing a Country.” – Christine Anderson.

 

 

Under international law, a treaty is any legally binding agreement between states (countries), and the ratification process varies according to the laws and Constitutions of each country. In the U.S., the President can ratify a treaty only after getting the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. It’s too early to tell which countries or how countries would ratify the new Treaty, but from a legal perspective, international treaties are gradually translated into national laws in most legal systems following the treaty’s ratification.

If this treaty is enshrined into national laws, the WHO would be in complete control over what gets called a pandemic in the first place; they could even declare a future climate emergency. They could dictate how our doctors can respond, which drugs can and can’t be used, or which vaccines are approved for use. We would end up with a “one-size-fits-all” approach for the entire world. And if the WHO is given the authority to dictate biosecurity rules for the world, you can bet they’ll insist on vaccine passports and digital identity; they already have a passport framework and a deal with T-Systems.

While we will follow this story closely, watching like a hawk, and wait for any draft treaty agreements, we must remain vigilant and skeptical. The World Health Organization is about to commit a global health governance power grab, and unless we want a post-democratic world government, we need to stop them and warn the world about what will come.