The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

The WHO Wants to Rule the World Ramesh Thakur The World Health Organisation (WHO) will present two new texts for adoption by its governing body, the World Health Assembly comprising delegates from 194 member states, in Geneva on 27 May–1 June. The new pandemic treaty needs a two-thirds majority for approval and, if and once adopted, will come into effect after 40 ratifications. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) can be adopted by a simple majority and will be binding on all states unless they recorded reservations by the end of last year. Because they will be changes to an existing agreement that states have already signed, the amendments do not require any follow-up ratification. The WHO describes the IHR as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally-binding’ on its 196 states parties, including the 194 WHO member states, even if they voted against it. Therein lies its promise and its threat. The new regime will change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation into a supra-national public health authority exercising quasi-legislative and executive powers over states; change the nature of the relationship between citizens, business enterprises, and governments domestically, and also between governments and other governments and the WHO internationally; and shift the locus of medical practice from the doctor-patient consultation in the clinic to public health bureaucrats in capital cities and WHO headquarters in Geneva and its six regional offices. From net zero to mass immigration and identity politics, the ‘expertocracy’ elite is in alliance with the global technocratic elite against majority national sentiment. The Covid years gave the elites a valuable lesson in how to exercise effective social control and they mean to apply it across all contentious issues. The changes to global health governance architecture must be understood in this light. It represents the transformation of the national security, administrative, and surveillance state into a globalised biosecurity state. But they are encountering pushback in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and most recently Ireland. We can but hope that the resistance will spread to rejecting the WHO power grab. Addressing the World Governments Summit in Dubai on 12 February, WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attacked ‘the litany of lies and conspiracy theories’ about the agreement that ‘are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.’ He insisted that critics are ‘either uninformed or lying.’ Could it be instead that, relying on aides, he himself has either not read or not understood the draft? The alternative explanation for his spray at the critics is that he is gaslighting us all. The Gostin, Klock, and Finch Paper In the Hastings Center Report “Making the World Safer and Fairer in Pandemics,” published on 23 December, Lawrence Gostin, Kevin Klock, and Alexandra Finch attempt to provide the justification to underpin the proposed new IHR and treaty instruments as ‘transformative normative and financial reforms that could reimagine pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.’ The three authors decry the voluntary compliance under the existing ‘amorphous and unenforceable’ IHR regulations as ‘a critical shortcoming.’ And they concede that ‘While advocates have pressed for health-related human rights to be included in the pandemic agreement, the current draft does not do so.’ Directly contradicting the DG’s denial as quoted above, they describe the new treaty as ‘legally binding’. This is repeated several pages later: …the best way to contain transnational outbreaks is through international cooperation, led multilaterally through the WHO. That may require all states to forgo some level of sovereignty in exchange for enhanced safety and fairness. What gives their analysis significance is that, as explained in the paper itself, Gostin is ‘actively involved in WHO processes for a pandemic agreement and IHR reform’ as the director of the WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law and a member of the WHO Review Committee on IHR amendments. The WHO as the World’s Guidance and Coordinating Authority The IHR amendments will expand the situations that constitute a public health emergency, grant the WHO additional emergency powers, and extend state duties to build ‘core capacities’ of surveillance to detect, assess, notify, and report events that could constitute an emergency. Under the new accords, the WHO would function as the guidance and coordinating authority for the world. The DG will become more powerful than the UN Secretary-General. The existing language of ‘should’ is replaced in many places by the imperative ‘shall,’ of non-binding recommendations with countries will ‘undertake to follow’ the guidance. And ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ will be changed to principles of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusivity’ with different requirements for rich and poor countries, bleeding financial resources and pharmaceutical products from industrialised to developing countries. The WHO is first of all an international bureaucracy and only secondly a collective body of medical and health experts. Its Covid performance was not among its finest. Its credibility was badly damaged by tardiness in raising the alarm; by its acceptance and then rejection of China’s claim that there was no risk of human-human transmission; by the failure to hold China accountable for destroying evidence of the pandemic’s origins; by the initial investigation that whitewashed the origins of the virus; by flip-flops on masks and lockdowns; by ignoring the counterexample of Sweden that rejected lockdowns with no worse health outcomes and far better economic, social, and educational outcomes; and by the failure to stand up for children’s developmental, educational, social, and mental health rights and welfare. With a funding model where 87 percent of the budget comes from voluntary contributions from the rich countries and private donors like the Gates Foundation, and 77 percent is for activities specified by them, the WHO has effectively ‘become a system of global public health patronage’, write Ben and Molly Kingsley of the UK children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Human Rights Watch says the process has been ‘disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.’ The victims of this Catch-22 lack of accountability will be the peoples of the world. Much of the new surveillance network in a model divided into pre-, in, and post-pandemic periods will be provided by private and corporate interests that will profit from the mass testing and pharmaceutical interventions. According to Forbes, the net worth of Bill Gates jumped by one-third from $96.5 billion in 2019 to $129 billion in 2022: philanthropy can be profitable. Article 15.2 of the draft pandemic treaty requires states to set up ‘no fault vaccine-injury compensation schemes,’ conferring immunity on Big Pharma against liability, thereby codifying the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of risks. The changes would confer extraordinary new powers on the WHO’s DG and regional directors and mandate governments to implement their recommendations. This will result in a major expansion of the international health bureaucracy under the WHO, for example new implementation and compliance committees; shift the centre of gravity from the common deadliest diseases (discussed below) to relatively rare pandemic outbreaks (five including Covid in the last 120 years); and give the WHO authority to direct resources (money, pharmaceutical products, intellectual property rights) to itself and to other governments in breach of sovereign and copyright rights. Considering the impact of the amendments on national decision-making and mortgaging future generations to internationally determined spending obligations, this calls for an indefinite pause in the process until parliaments have done due diligence and debated the potentially far-reaching obligations. Yet disappointingly, relatively few countries have expressed reservations and few parliamentarians seem at all interested. We may pay a high price for the rise of careerist politicians whose primary interest is self-advancement, ministers who ask bureaucrats to draft replies to constituents expressing concern that they often sign without reading either the original letter or the reply in their name, and officials who disdain the constraints of democratic decision-making and accountability. Ministers relying on technical advice from staffers when officials are engaged in a silent coup against elected representatives give power without responsibility to bureaucrats while relegating ministers to being in office but not in power, with political accountability sans authority. US President Donald Trump and Australian and UK Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson were representative of national leaders who had lacked the science literacy, intellectual heft, moral clarity, and courage of conviction to stand up to their technocrats. It was a period of Yes, Prime Minister on steroids, with Sir Humphrey Appleby winning most of the guerrilla campaign waged by the permanent civil service against the transient and clueless Prime Minister Jim Hacker. At least some Australian, American, British, and European politicians have recently expressed concern at the WHO-centred ‘command and control’ model of a public health system, and the public spending and redistributive implications of the two proposed international instruments. US Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) warned on 5 February that ‘far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.’ Like Smith and Wenstrup, the most common criticism levelled has been that this represents a power grab at the cost of national sovereignty. Speaking in parliament in November, Australia’s Liberal Senator Alex Antic dubbed the effort a ‘WHO d’etat’. A more accurate reading may be that it represents collusion between the WHO and the richest countries, home to the biggest pharmaceutical companies, to dilute accountability for decisions, taken in the name of public health, that profit a narrow elite. The changes will lock in the seamless rule of the technocratic-managerial elite at both the national and the international levels. Yet the WHO edicts, although legally binding in theory, will be unenforceable against the most powerful countries in practice. Moreover, the new regime aims to eliminate transparency and critical scrutiny by criminalising any opinion that questions the official narrative from the WHO and governments, thereby elevating them to the status of dogma. The pandemic treaty calls for governments to tackle the ‘infodemics’ of false information, misinformation, disinformation, and even ‘too much information’ (Article 1c). This is censorship. Authorities have no right to be shielded from critical questioning of official information. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of an open and resilient society and a key means to hold authorities to public scrutiny and accountability. The changes are an effort to entrench and institutionalise the model of political, social, and messaging control trialled with great success during Covid. The foundational document of the international human rights regime is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pandemic management during Covid and in future emergencies threaten some of its core provisions regarding privacy, freedom of opinion and expression, and rights to work, education, peaceful assembly, and association. Worst of all, they will create a perverse incentive: the rise of an international bureaucracy whose defining purpose, existence, powers, and budgets will depend on more frequent declarations of actual or anticipated pandemic outbreaks. It is a basic axiom of politics that power that can be abused, will be abused – some day, somewhere, by someone. The corollary holds that power once seized is seldom surrendered back voluntarily to the people. Lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, and all the other shenanigans and theatre of the Covid era will likely be repeated on whim. Professor Angus Dalgliesh of London’s St George’s Medical School warns that the WHO ‘wants to inflict this incompetence on us all over again but this time be in total control.’ Covid in the Context of Africa’s Disease Burden In the Hastings Center report referred to earlier, Gostin, Klock, and Finch claim that ‘lower-income countries experienced larger losses and longer-lasting economic setbacks.’ This is a casual elision that shifts the blame for harmful downstream effects away from lockdowns in the futile quest to eradicate the virus, to the virus itself. The chief damage to developing countries was caused by the worldwide shutdown of social life and economic activities and the drastic reduction in international trade. The discreet elision aroused my curiosity on the authors’ affiliations. It came as no surprise to read that they lead the O’Neill Institute–Foundation for the National Institutes of Health project on an international instrument for pandemic prevention and preparedness. Gostin et al. grounded the urgency for the new accords in the claim that ‘Zoonotic pathogens…are occurring with increasing frequency, enhancing the risk of new pandemics’ and cite research to suggest a threefold increase in ‘extreme pandemics’ over the next decade. In a report entitled “Rational Policy Over Panic,” published by Leeds University in February, a team that included our own David Bell subjected claims of increasing pandemic frequency and disease burden behind the drive to adopt the new treaty and amend the existing IHR to critical scrutiny. Specifically, they examined and found wanting a number of assumptions and several references in eight G20, World Bank, and WHO policy documents. On the one hand, the reported increase in natural outbreaks is best explained by technologically more sophisticated diagnostic testing equipment, while the disease burden has been effectively reduced with improved surveillance, response mechanisms, and other public health interventions. Consequently there is no real urgency to rush into the new accords. Instead, governments should take all the time they need to situate pandemic risk in the wider healthcare context and formulate policy tailored to the more accurate risk and interventions matrix. The lockdowns were responsible for reversals of decades worth of gains in critical childhood immunisations. UNICEF and WHO estimate that 7.6 million African children under 5 missed out on vaccination in 2021 and another 11 million were under-immunised, ‘making up over 40 percent of the under-immunised and missed children globally.’ How many quality adjusted life years does that add up to, I wonder? But don’t hold your breath that anyone will be held accountable for crimes against African children. Earlier this month the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument.’ It accused the WHO of trying to reintroduce ‘classical Western colonialism through the backdoor’ in the form of the new pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. Medical knowledge and innovations do not come solely from Western capitals and Geneva, but from people and groups who have captured the WHO agenda. Lockdowns had caused significant harm to low-income countries, the group said, yet the WHO wanted legal authority to compel member states to comply with its advice in future pandemics, including with respect to vaccine passports and border closures. Instead of bowing to ‘health imperialism,’ it would be preferable for African countries to set their own priorities in alleviating the disease burden of their major killer diseases like cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Europe and the US, comprising a little under ten and over four percent of world population, account for nearly 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of all Covid-related deaths in the world. By contrast Asia, with nearly 60 percent of the world’s people, accounts for 23 percent of all Covid-related deaths. Meantime Africa, with more than 17 percent of global population, has recorded less than four percent of global Covid deaths (Table 1). According to a report on the continent’s disease burden published last year by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, Africa’s leading causes of death in 2021 were malaria (593,000 deaths), tuberculosis (501,000), and HIV/AIDS (420,000). The report does not provide the numbers for diarrhoeal deaths for Africa. There are 1.6 million such deaths globally per year, including 440,000 children under 5. And we know that most diarrhoeal deaths occur in Africa and South Asia. If we perform a linear extrapolation of 2021 deaths to estimate ballpark figures for the three years 2020–22 inclusive for numbers of Africans killed by these big three, approximately 1.78 million died from malaria, 1.5 million from TB, and 1.26 million from HIV/AIDS. (I exclude 2023 as Covid had faded by then, as can be seen in Table 1). By comparison, the total number of Covid-related deaths across Africa in the three years was 259,000. Whether or not the WHO is pursuing a policy of health colonialism, therefore, the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group has a point regarding the grossly exaggerated threat of Covid in the total picture of Africa’s disease burden. A shorter version of this was published in The Australian on 11 March Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-wants-to-rule-the-world/

Fox News talking about the elites who want to control us through social media and there was a concerted effort to lie to us about the pandemic. Research 201 was mentioned too. Singapore sent delegates there. It's all coming out soon. Don't get the shock of your life when that happens. Join t.me/healingthedivide

Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help? Rhoda WilsonJanuary 29, 2024 Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those elected to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty and freedom. Although at this time we cannot rely on our government to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, there appears to be hope, Dr. Tess Lawrie writes. That hope lies in a recent discovery by researchers that the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) is unlawful. Based on this, The People’s Lawyers have launched an injunction to reject the proposed amendments to the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty. The People’s Lawyers are also seeking to halt the UK government’s funding of WHO and related organisations and get the UK to exit the WHO. So, what can we do to help? Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Is the UK Unlawfully a Member of WHO? By Dr. Tess Lawrie A summary of what you need to know. A shocking (but hopeful!) discovery If those controlling the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) get their way, the United Kingdom and other member states will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR”), and the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” To date, citizen efforts to oppose these developments have been ignored. But suddenly it appears that there is hope! New research has revealed that the UK is unlawfully part of WHO! Based on this discovery, a group known as The People’s Lawyers are launching a legal action for an injunction to reject the IHR and proposed amendments, any “Pandemic Treaty,” and all dictates from WHO, both now and in the future. They are also seeking to halt UK Government funding of WHO and related organisations and to have the UK exit WHO on the basis that its membership has been unlawful from the start. How did this situation arise? The fundamental concern is that significant fraud was committed during the establishment of WHO. Documents, including diary entries, prove that the “official story” is a highly sanitised version of the actual events. You can read the details of the whole intriguing story HERE, but for a quick overview, here are the essential points that illustrate the fraudulent nature of WHO’s origins, and give hope that this may aid the UK’s withdrawal. 1. The official story states that: “In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organisation be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.” In fact, this was not a spontaneous proposal from two nations; instead, the two doctors who brought the proposal, Dr. Souza from Brazil and Dr. Sze, a Chinese American, worked together at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (“UNRRA”) in Washington DC and were collaborating with the US Government and the Rockefeller Foundation (“RF”) to engineer WHO’s establishment. Dr. Sze wrote the documents claimed to be from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding “their” desires for an international health organisation, and both doctors worked hard to convince the Brazilian and Chinese delegates to cooperate. 2. Dr. Sze also drafted a resolution from the San Francisco Conference and took this to Washington D.C., where Rockefeller-influenced officials approved it as a Health Interim Commission. This mechanism – first used to create the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1943 – allowed an organisation to be set up exactly as required. People who had not been involved in the “expert” proceedings were unable to change things later. Thus, WHO was set up by stealth, without notification or participation of potential member states. 3. The role of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has quietly steered the global public health agenda for over a century, cannot be underestimated. Since it was founded in 1913 it has been a major funder of public health research, policy, implementation, and education around the world. While it is a philanthropic body, this level of investment garners a great deal of geopolitical power and influence. Indeed, the progenitor of WHO – the League of Nations Health Organisation (“LNHO”), founded after World War I – was modelled on the RF’s own International Health Division (est. 1927), and the RF was its major patron. 4. The UN Economic and Social Council (“ESC”) called for an International Health Conference in New York (19 June – 22 July 1946) to establish WHO. This proved to be a rubber-stamping exercise as, prior to the conference, the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee – comprising members with links to the RF, including Souza and Sze, as well as US government representatives – had finalised the proposed WHO Constitution. 5. This Constitution was essentially forced on the delegates. They assumed that it would be properly considered and ratified and that it could be rejected by their own governments, but this did not happen. In the UK there was no attempt to review or ratify the document. On 22 July 1946, it was signed by representatives of 61 nations. While this would seem to be the date of the establishment of WHO, the Constitution only came into force in 1948, after 26 nations had ratified it. The Interim Commission remained in force for two more years, until it was succeeded by WHO on 31 August 1948. 6. Mystery surrounds the involvement of the UK in the establishment of WHO. The official Parliamentary record, Hansard, makes no mention during May 1946 of the UK signing up to a “World Health Organisation” shortly after the UN ESC meeting in New York. While the official UN attendance list states that the minister in charge of the UK delegation was Hector McNeil, Hansard records him speaking in Parliament on the same day – so he could not have been present in New York. Very few MPs – not even the Health Minister – knew about the International Health Conference or the signing of the WHO Constitution. It is highly irregular that the UK was not required to ratify its membership and that the Cabinet neither discussed nor agreed to this international agreement. 7. At the end of the International Health Conference, the WHO Constitution was signed by two ‘government advisors’ – Dr. McKenzie and Mr. Yates – on behalf of the UK. No UK Minister was present and the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, who attended the Conference was not a signatory. It is unconscionable that such an important agreement could have been signed without Parliament even being aware of the process, and without any senior members of the Government being present. There are even questions as to the legality of the original signed Constitution as many of the signatures were just squiggles, and the printed names and positions of the signatories, which are required on a legally binding document, were missing. 8. One of the reasons for the establishment of WHO was to take over the functions of UNRRA, a body with a limited life span but massive public health powers. In 1944 it had imposed International Sanitary Conventions on the entire world and had the power to mandate vaccination of anyone they chose. 9. Another organisation that was incorporated into WHO in 1946 was the LNHO. With all its staff being transferred to WHO, the new organisation incorporated much of LNHO’s sinister past, including a history of Nazi and fascist collaboration during World War II, promotion of eugenics – population control and sterilisation – in its policies, and control by Rockefeller and Big Pharma interests. Time for legal action WHO’s current desperate power grab clearly has a long history. Even before the signing of WHO’s Constitution in 1946, its progenitor organisations were already using public health as a means of expanding global control. The UK’s People and parliament were bypassed and deceived when WHO was created, and have continued to be deceived by the unlawful nature of the UK’s membership of WHO for the past 77 years. But now this immense fraud has been exposed and the legal challenge must follow. Considering the above, The People’s Lawyers assert that: The UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution. It is therefore not legitimately a WHO member state and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, their recent amendments, or any ‘Pandemic Treaty’. The UK should not be subject to any dictates from WHO, nor should it have to make any further financial contributions to WHO or any associated organisations. Past contributions to WHO should now be refunded, as WHO knowingly allowed unelected advisors to unlawfully sign the Constitution, and this without ratification. Recognising the depth of the fraud, other alleged WHO “Member States” should now also examine how they ended up as part of WHO, without a referendum or even, in some cases, ratification. It is time for the people to hold WHO to account. Thanks to The People’s Lawyers, there is now evidence we can use to dismantle this discredited organisation. Further resources: Sign the Petition to End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation! Pledge to help to support The People’s Lawyers in their case to Reject and Exit the WHO! About the Author Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (BIRD International), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health. She is the author of a Substack page titled ‘A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie’ and you can follow her on Twitter HERE. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/29/legal-action-for-the-uk-to-defund-and-exit-the-who/

Mark Dankof to Kevin McCarthy and the Republican Jewish Coalition: Jesus is Coming Soon, and Boy, is He Pissed Mark DankofDecember 24, 2023 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. I received confirmation today that the Republican Jewish Coalition and Kevin McCarthy received my cordial response to their email solicitation to join up with them and donate some Benjamins. (🇮🇱🚽🤬🖕🤠) The laughs begin below. 😎😎😎🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 Mark — Thank you for your message. Republican Jewish Coalition https://www.rjchq.org/ My message: November 29, 2023 To: Republican Jewish Coalition 50 F St NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001 United States of America Dear “Friends”: I received Kevin McCarthy’s email solicitation to join the Republican Jewish Coalition and to get the terrific bumper sticker for a minimum donation of only $15. As for “America’s Greatest Ally,” I’m personally not a fan of the Lavon Affair, the David Ben Gurion-Meyer Lansky link to the Kennedy Assassination, Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8th, 1967 in Operation Cyanide, the NUMEC nuclear materials thefts in Apollo, Pennsylvania, the Pollard-Ben Ami-NSC/AIPAC spy cases among many others, the PROMIS Affair, Israel’s real role in 9-11, the Zionist/Neo-Conservative warmongering foreign policy of the United States, the Mossad’s Epstein-Maxwell Sex Trafficking and Blackmail ring, or wholesale Palestinian genocide. On the domestic side, I have no use for the wholesale assault on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights being conducted by the Israeli Lobby and its assets in both of the major political parties, the mainstream news media, Zionist-dominated American social media, and the American National Security apparatus. As for me, as one who supports nation-state sovereignty for the United States, the European countries, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, China, and everyone else, “My Greatest Ally” is Vladimir Putin. Nuland’s Zio-Coup in Kiev in February of 2014 is about to completely backfire. It is terrific to watch Zelensky, and the entire Zionist quest for GloboHomo go down the proverbial tube, along with everyone who has been bought off by it. And in conclusion, I have no use for the Republican Jewish Coalition, Kevin McCarthy, Mitt Romney, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, or a cast of thousands supporting wars for Israel and wars for World Government and GloboHomo that would have been unequivocally condemned by the Founding Fathers of this country. Photo Credit: Michael Patrick Walsh on Vkontakte and the Fan Page The latter would have described this lamentable state of affairs in two words: The first is Treason with a Capital T. The second is Disaster with a Capital D. Putin is mopping up the floor with Zelensky, and the Russian-Chinese-Iranian alliance will put GloboHomo out of business both militarily and through De-Dollarization of the global economy. The Zio-American Empire will be finished. What remains to be seen in the midst of the rubble is whether or not the Old American Republic can ever be recovered. The Counterfeit Cabal’s Flip Side of the Coin to Kevin McCarthy and the Republican Jewish Coalition. And the American public may finally figure out who the real culprits are in the subsequent destruction of their lives, their families, and their communities. And when Jesus returns, both He and they will really be Pissed. Mark Dankof San Antonio, Texas P.S. My copy of the New York Times today says Mr. McCarthy has until December 8th to decide if he will run for re-election. (Maybe Lindsey Graham can drum up some poll numbers for him.) Was the former 36th District Chairman of the Republican Party in King County/Seattle. He was an elected delegate to Texas State Republican Conventions in 1994 and 1996 and entered the United States Senate race in Delaware in 2000 as the nominated candidate of the Constitution Party against Democratic candidate Thomas Carper and Republican incumbent William Roth. Mark is the host of The Dankof Report for the Republic Broadcasting Network and the London version of The Dankof Report heard on the first Tuesday of each month for ACH and broadcast by RBN, Rense Radio, Free Speech Radio, and EuroFolkRadio. ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/12/mark-dankof-to-kevin-mccarthy-and-the-republican-jewish-coalition-jesus-is-coming-soon-and-boy-is-he-pissed/

Slovakia will not be entering into any international pandemic agreements with WHO, Prime Minister says Rhoda WilsonNovember 25, 2023 During a SMER party conference, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico declared that his government will not sign the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Treaty and SMER Members of Parliament will not ratify in parliament the Pandemic Treaty with the WHO because it is a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Robert Fico was appointed as Slovakia’s Prime Minister for the fourth time on 25 October 2023 after his SMER – Slovenská Sociálna Demokracia (“SMER”) party won the election on 30 September and formed a coalition with the centre-left HLAS – Sociálna Demokracia (“HLAS”) and nationalist Slovenská Národná Strana (“SNS”) parties. A week ago, during an hour-long speech at the SMER party conference, of which he is chairman, Prime Minister Fico stated that he will not support strengthening the powers of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) at the expense of sovereign states in the fight against pandemics. “Only insane pharmaceutical companies could come up with such nonsense,” he told the more than 400 guests, ambassadors, delegates and party members present. His speech is on YouTube in Slovak. There is no autogenerated translation available so we turn to alternative sources for translations into English. Door to Freedom has published the clip below from Fico’s speech with English subtitles. Door to Freedom: Slovakia – Will not sign the WHO amendments, 23 November 2023 (3 mins) Writing about his speech alternative media outlet InfoVojna wrote (Czech to English translation using Google Translate): [The Pandemic Treaty] would transfer health powers in times of a pandemic from the national ministries of health of the signatory countries to the World Health Organisation. The WHO would then acquire draconian decision-making powers, which the signatory countries would have to follow, not only in the area of ​​the obligation to purchase vaccines and medicines ordered by the WHO, but it could also happen with compulsory vaccinations ordered by this multinational organisation. And it was Robert Fico who unequivocally rejected this and declared that SMER MPs would not raise their hands for such a proposal. Fico called the entire agreement with the WHO a plan of greedy pharmaceutical companies, which began to worry about their business, when it now appears that many countries of the world are ceasing to purchase vaccines, cancelling vaccination mandates and the entire business of the pharmaceutical companies is going down the drain. The Pandemic Treaty is supposed to change this and ensure that, through the WHO, the collection of vaccines will be mandated and authoritatively prescribed to all member countries that sign the Pandemic Treaty and then ratify in the parliaments. Robert Fico declared at the ceremonial assembly at Bratislava Castle that Slovakia under his government will not sign the Pandemic Agreement with the WHO, because it is a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies, InfoVojna, 20 November 2023none Martin Demirov who describes himself as someone who likes to “post translations of censored press articles and search for various interesting facts” has written about Fico’s speech in a post on Twitter. His post is in Polish, which we’ve reproduced below in English using the translation generated by Twitter. Fico Delivered a Speech at the Party Congress “The Previous Government Killed 20,000 People During Covid!” By Martin Demirov Fico outlined his priorities: If they arrested me, change would not be possible. One of the longest-existing parties, which will celebrate its 25th anniversary next year, held its annual congress. SMER won the elections in September, and party chairman Robert Fico immediately reminded more than 400 guests, ambassadors, delegates and party members not to be so serious. “For God’s sake, we won.” In his introductory speech, he presented a vision of change for the coming year. Remembering the “covid madness” and the need to change the law protecting criminal groups associated with the previous government, he did not hide his joy at reuniting with the HLAS party. In the first half of his speech, Fico criticised the former government and its leadership (for covid madness, for warmongering), in the second half he talked about the party’s goals, and less than two hours later he ended the speech with the words: “we are here, we move on, they did not break us.” According to party vice president Juraj Blanar, Fico’s leadership is important for SMER. Long live the Slovak Republic,” he concluded his speech. What was the direction of change? The guests included representatives of Bulgaria, ambassadors of Great Britain, China, the United States of America, as well as Cuba, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The Polish ambassador also confirmed his presence. The guests also included the president of the Pensioners’ Union, MichaÅ‚ Kocjan, the president of the Association of Slovak Towns and Villages, Józef Bożek, and the president of the Association of Anti-fascist Fighters, Viliam Longauer. Representatives of employers were also present. Among the Ministers present were Defence Minister Robert Kalinak, Finance Minister Ladislav Kamenicki and Agriculture Minister Ryszard Takacz. Zuzana Plewikova, deputy chairman of the party and member of the youth organisation, also attended the meeting. Thanks to over 20 years of experience, Fico knows how to energise his people and focus on proven electoral topics, thanks to which, although he won electoral votes, he was among politicians leaning towards the alternative scene. “It’s a party convention, it’s not a cabinet meeting, so stop being so serious, we won the election, for God’s sake.” Blanard welcomed Fico, the national anthem was played and a minute of silence honoured the memory of the dead In his speech, he wanted to present a vision for the next year, but he didn’t get there until the second half of the speech. “We won the parliamentary elections for the fifth time,” he said. “We are absolutely the best, and I emphasise this a thousand times, political party in the history of modern Slovakia and we want to remain that way,” he said. We naturally reconnected with HLAS. At the beginning of his speech, he also touched on the illegal actions of the former government during the Covid-19 pandemic, praised the media alternative to the mainstream and attacked the previous government for repression and compulsory vaccinations. Four Media – Denník N, denník Sme, Markízu and Aktuality – did not receive accreditation. Since last week, they have also been unwanted guests in the government building. “Slovakia is talking more and more openly about the 20,000 victims of mismanagement in the country and the government’s senseless decisions,” continued the four-time Prime Minister. He wants to support the efforts of politicians who want to hold the previous government to account and has no plans to support the work of the World Health Organisation to the detriment of sovereign states when it comes to managing the fight against the pandemic. “Such nonsense could only have been invented by greedy pharmaceutical companies,” he said. He called SMER a “write-off” party after the 2020 elections, whose opponents were delighted that social democracy split into two groups when Peter Pellegrini left the party to gain the right to vote. “But it is natural that we met again to co-operate in the government. It is no coincidence that we kept emphasising before the early elections that the basis for forming a new government should be the merger of SMER and HLAS,” he said. “The shock of our opponents after SMER’s election victory and subsequent decisive steps to quickly form a government was so great that they created an atmosphere as if we had stolen the electoral victory and had to hand it over to the opposition liberal “progressive Slovakia,” he said. In addition to PS, he again criticised President Zuzana Caputova. In response to the suspension of membership in the European Socialist Party, Fico said he did not know why they intervened, because it was the same party as in the past. “SMER is not a pennant that turns wherever the wind blows,” he said, adding that Portugal was behind the suspension. Party membership has never served them well, and Fico only remembers a lot of criticism. “When did the party of European Socialists help us over the last 20 years? When? I don’t remember,” he added. Andrei Danko’s party, coalition partner SNS, was criticised abroad mainly for choosing a more radical path. Before the elections, SNS merged with three smaller far-right organisations, and several of its members were candidates for the Our Slovakia People’s Party, whose leader, Marian Kotleba, was convicted of extremism and also lost his seat. Robert Fico blamed the politicians who led Slovakia in the last parliamentary term for the state of the country it is in. “We were not destroyed because we had a different opinion about covid, we were not destroyed because we had a different opinion about Ukraine and we were not destroyed because of an attempt to arrest us for political activities,” he said. “I don’t know if there is an opposition politician in the EU who has been accused four times in three years for his political views. Not because of corruption, but because of his political views,” he told foreign guests. Fico, along with Tibor Gashpar and Robert Kalinak, were accused by the previous authorities of many “crimes.” “I was lucky that I didn’t go to prison, because if they had put me in jail for my political views after two press conferences where we told the truth, neither you nor I would be sitting here today because the party would have been destroyed,” he said. Fico also touched on the presidential and European elections. “The party’s vice-chairman Lubosz Blaha also expressed interest in the elections, the European Parliament is certainly waiting for you, Lubosz,” Fico said. Recently, the opposition wanted to fire him for hanging a portrait of revolutionary Che Guevara instead of a portrait of President Zuzana Caputova after taking over as deputy speaker of Parliament, but the coalition blocked the session. A few days ago, he also published his book “CHE” In addition, he also talked about the need for changes in the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the need for changes in the special prosecutor’s office. He called, among other things, for an urgent change to the whistle-blower law, which currently protects investigators around Jan Churilla and Lubomir Danek. The party’s goal is to stabilise the country and finances and win again. Later, Fico also reached the main political goals of the SMER party. In particular, the most important of them is a successful government that will end in 2027 with victory in the parliamentary elections. In his speech, he outlined what the government should focus on in the coming months. “I don’t see a successful government as a set of numbers, indicators or charts. We will only be successful in 2027 when people realise that it is better, more peaceful and safer,” he said. Fico stressed the need for political stability and efforts to minimise conflicts within the coalition. He also called for quick policy solutions to show interest in “stabilising disrupted public finances at a reasonable and sustainable pace.” Sufficient financial reserves must also be created to compensate for high energy prices, especially for households. He also wants to reduce the impact of high interest rates on mortgages and subsequent refinancing in 2023, while announcing direct mortgage assistance in 2024. He also confirmed the aim of creating the financial conditions for the payment of the full 13th pension. He also stressed the need to have all the necessary regulatory tools and resources to intervene in the event of significant fluctuations in food prices. According to Fico, the government should also immediately decide how to transfer as many European Funds as possible to regions, cities and municipalities and simplify the administrative burden of obtaining them as much as possible. He also called for changes to regulations governing licensing procedures and procurement conditions to be approved “in record time.” According to the Prime Minister, the best proposal for the Education System for practical purposes should also be agreed upon so that the changes come into force at the beginning of the 2024/2025 school year. He also confirmed that the government had started negotiations on new foreign investments. “We have something to consider, we are currently reviewing projects. It is always a question of the scale of state aid,” he said. He also considers it his duty to support every Slovak company that wants to operate in foreign markets. Within two to three months, the coalition will have to develop a mechanism and regulations to shorten the period during which legal migrants with the qualifications necessary to run a business in Slovakia will be able to obtain all permits. He said the proposed measures are the minimum the government must take. He emphasised that all actions should be undertaken within the framework of broad social dialogue. He also confirmed that talks on the government’s withdrawal will take place in Trenčín in December and in Prešov at the end of January. In addition to Fico, the party’s vice presidents, Lubosz Blaha, Ladislav Kamienicki and Ryszard Takacz, also appeared. The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help.. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… . Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come… Your Government & Big Tech organisations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal are trying to silence & shut down The Expose. So we need your help to ensure we can continue to bring you the facts the mainstream refuse to… We’re not funded by the Government to publish lies & propaganda on their behalf like the mainstream media. Instead, we rely solely on our support. So please support us in our efforts to bring you honest, reliable, investigative journalism today. It’s secure, quick and easy… Just choose your preferred method to show your support belowV support James Rickards: When the next financial crisis hits the elites are planning to freeze the financial system, worldwide US, China, Israel and others are developing AI killer drones; this poses significant risks The latest trends in healthcare and other observations DEADLY SECRETS: Unvaccinated account for just 5% of COVID-19 Deaths since beginning of 2023 but 3 & 4x Vaccinated account for Shocking 95% Slovakia will not be entering into any international pandemic agreements with WHO, Prime Minister says During a SMER party conference, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico declared that his government will not sign the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Treaty and SMER Members of Parliament will not ratify in parliament the Pandemic Treaty with the WHO because it is a project of greedy pharmaceutical companies... https://expose-news.com/2023/11/25/slovakia-will-not-be-entering-into/

Ethiopian Airlines is pleased to welcome a delegation from Atlanta, U.S.A led by Honourable Mayor Andre Dickens, Mayor of Atlanta. The delegation included Ms. Lisa Gordon – Chief Operating Officer, Ms. Vanessa Ibarra – Executive Director, Mayor’s Office of International & Immigrant Affairs, Ms. Alrene Barr – Senior Airport Director, Office of Public & International Affairs, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and other honourable delegates. The team visited Ethiopian state-of-the-art facilities and held fruitful discussions with Chairman of Ethiopian Airlines Group Management Board Mr. Girma Wake, Group CEO Mr. Mesfin Tasew and Ethiopian executive management members. #EthiopianAirlines

Ethiopian Airlines is pleased to welcome a delegation from Atlanta, U.S.A led by Honourable Mayor Andre Dickens, Mayor of Atlanta. The delegation included Ms. Lisa Gordon – Chief Operating Officer, Ms. Vanessa Ibarra – Executive Director, Mayor’s Office of International & Immigrant Affairs, Ms. Alrene Barr – Senior Airport Director, Office of Public & International Affairs, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and other honourable delegates. The team visited Ethiopian state-of-the-art facilities and held fruitful discussions with Chairman of Ethiopian Airlines Group Management Board Mr. Girma Wake, Group CEO Mr. Mesfin Tasew and Ethiopian executive management members. #EthiopianAirlines

Continuing a chilling display of authoritarianism, Rep. Stacey Plaskett, the Democratic delegate representing the Virgin Islands in the US Congress, has waged a war on independent journalist Matt Taibbi. #TwitterFiles

Greetings Everyone Today we will be talking about Staking, Delegated staking and impermanent loss 1. WHAT IS STAKING The concept of Staking is seen in this lesson which is based on the Proof of Stake mechanism on the consensus protocol. Here we see Staking as a system of locking assets over a period to generate interest and get benefits. We see this aspect as diverse assets could be blocked from investors' control or not blocked at all and in other words making profit levels different. 2. What is Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)? Under the shadow of Staking where we see the Proof of stake, we have the delegated Proof of stake mechanism seen as a system that operates with a delegatable kind of mechanism making the process more democratic. It could be seen as an Innovation of the Proof of Stake concept where users of the network vote and elect to activate the next block in the network. Here delegates are considered, block producers since they are the owners of the choices as to which blocks are produced next and vice versa. Reduced numbers of delegates are chosen from 20,25 even up to a hundred and making the block delegates different and not just in order. The major catch of this process is the reward given to delegates who stake their share of their fees of the validated block in the delegate pool which is successful. The rewards are shared based on each user stake ie what percentage you stake is your percentage reward The first holding of DPOS was by former EOS Chief Technology Officer Dan Latimer who initiated the first algorithm on the decentralized platform of the renowned Bitshares in 2015, while whole numerous exchanges now use the DPOS 3. What is Impermanent Loss? The relation of an Impermanent loss to this work could be seen as when a trader stakes his assets and a volatile fall in the market happens beyond his asset value, there is said to be an impermanent loss. An impermanent loss could be seen as a situation when a trader ie the liquidity provider incurs a loss of his /her assets due to volatility in a trading market. #staking #SME #AweSME #someeofficial #SoMee #crypto

Today I was in charge as team delegate. Exhausted!

Muusku waxa uuka midyahay cuntada macdan laga hello beerashadiisuna waxay kaa qadan kartaa mudo iyo sida loo barbaariyo Ani ahaan cunistiisa waanka helaa #somee #treding #banana #hot #food #powersame #delegate #foods

An amazing chainsaw carving of an elk by Jordan Anderson. #somee #trending #hot #hive #someepower #delegate #tribaldex

More and more is being delegated to people because of packages being sold and influencers being onboarded. Definetely bullish for SoMee!