The WHO Pandemic Agreement has now passed.
![[Image: bIwzqaq.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/bIwzqaq.jpg)
There was no parliamentary vote, no public debate, and no referendum.
Outside the US there are growing concerns about sovereignty, accountability, and global governance with the foul odor of WEF shenanigans.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted on May 19, 2025, by 124 countries at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, with 0 objections and 11 abstaining, including the U.S. It aims to boost global pandemic response and equity but wasn't voted on by parliaments or public referendums, as is standard for such treaties. Critics fear it erodes sovereignty and lacks accountability, citing potential WHO overreach and human rights gaps. Supporters say it respects sovereignty, requiring country ratification, and enhances health security. The U.S. withdrawal from WHO, effective 2026, may hopefully weaken its impact. Concerns are valid, but the agreement's effects depend on implementation.
The treaty was adopted by consensus, not a formal vote, which means that governments, including the UK, virtue signaled approval without domestic scrutiny.
![[Image: SnGLsFq.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/SnGLsFq.jpg)
The countries not part of the WHO are Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and Taiwan. Liechtenstein, a UN member, collaborates via Switzerland and opts out due to its small size. Vatican City, not a UN member, has minimal global health involvement. Taiwan's exclusion stems from political tensions with Beijing, though it participates in some WHO activities as "Chinese Taipei."
The treaty is designed to address failings exposed by how countries "handled COVID-19."
It outlines legal commitments to:
– Share pathogen samples & genetic data
– Distribute vaccines & therapeutics "equitably"
– Strengthen international surveillance
– Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations
– Develop global digital health certification systems
World Health Assembly adopts historic Pandemic Agreement
This agreement is not limited to pandemic response. It's based on the WHO’s "One Health" framework, which views human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected. (interlinked / interlocked)
![[Image: aWm6RxP.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/aWm6RxP.jpg)
Critics (rightly) argue this broadens the WHO’s scope, allowing it to influence food systems, climate policy, agriculture, and land use under the guise of "pandemic prevention."
While the WHO cannot override national law, the treaty creates binding international obligations. Governments may use it to justify emergency laws or sweeping public health powers while shielding decisions behind the language of "international compliance" or "global coordination."
The WHO is not a democratic institution. Its Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, is not elected by citizens, but appointed via a process dominated by diplomatic negotiations between member states. His past controversies, including handling of the early COVID outbreak and ties to China, have fueled considerable concerns about impartiality.
![[Image: nO5zoUO.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/nO5zoUO.jpg)
The WHO’s top funders are not primarily governments. As of 2023, its largest contributors included:
– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
– GAVI Alliance
– UNICEF
– The European Commission
– Germany and the US
Private foundations now shape global public health priorities without any electoral mandate.
Among the more contentious provisions of the treaty are proposals to implement a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system. This would allow WHO to access pathogen samples from any country and redistribute pharmaceutical products under "equitable" frameworks — potentially overriding domestic vaccine supply chains.
The treaty also encourages states to adopt digital health documentation systems, which could evolve into permanent digital IDs tied to vaccination or health status. While presented as public health tools, such systems have been heavily criticised by civil liberties groups as intrusive, coercive, Orwellian and open to mission creep.
![[Image: SupAgmt.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/SupAgmt.jpg)
Several countries abstained or objected during the drafting phase. These include:
Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran, Algeria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Argentina, and Egypt.
Their stated concerns include loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity, and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.
In the UK, there has been virtually no parliamentary debate over the treaty. No formal statement has been made by the Prime Minister or Health Secretary. Despite the agreement’s long-term implications, the UK has participated in negotiations quietly, bypassing public scrutiny.
The adoption of this treaty reflects a broader trend:
The shift from nation-state governance to transnational managerialism. Under this model, decisions affecting hundreds of millions are increasingly shaped by busybody billionaire technocrats, NGOs, foundations, and UN agencies — none of whom are directly accountable to voters.
James Burnham's 1941 "The Managerial Revolution" explains this.
![[Image: 4sVu6IF.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/4sVu6IF.jpg)
Burnham's idea of an unaccountable managerial class has gained traction among conservative intellectuals seeking to counteract the power of this class, viewing "woke" as the justifying ideology of the new class.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a structural change in how global policy is made — particularly in moments of crisis...which you can trace such crisis moments all the way back to the Black Death and the ensuing global policies that were added/changed.
What COVID 911 began, the WHO treaty formalizes:
Emergency governance, centralized authority, and the use of global health as a gateway to broader control.
If democratic governments can enter binding international agreements on pandemic policy without consulting their citizens, then who governs in a crisis?
The answer, increasingly, is:
Those you cannot remove from office.
The only way to remove them is you have to kill them. Just like back in ancient times.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a landmark. Not just in public health, but in global governance. It centralizes authority, weakens national sovereignty, and embeds unelected influence at the heart of crisis response.
The public was never asked.
Note this agreement is just an agreed upon adoption. It will be several years before any of it is implemented. Smaller countries/small populations will feel the WHO whip first and be used as trial & error tests. But, these parasites work on generational plans, bit by bit. The US will be fully exited from the WHO cult sometime next year and at least while Trump is in Office I'm not going to worry much about it. I'll still keep my ears open in the event their policy influence starts creeping into the USA.
![[Image: AGXsWAj.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/AGXsWAj.jpg)
There was no parliamentary vote, no public debate, and no referendum.
Outside the US there are growing concerns about sovereignty, accountability, and global governance with the foul odor of WEF shenanigans.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted on May 19, 2025, by 124 countries at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, with 0 objections and 11 abstaining, including the U.S. It aims to boost global pandemic response and equity but wasn't voted on by parliaments or public referendums, as is standard for such treaties. Critics fear it erodes sovereignty and lacks accountability, citing potential WHO overreach and human rights gaps. Supporters say it respects sovereignty, requiring country ratification, and enhances health security. The U.S. withdrawal from WHO, effective 2026, may hopefully weaken its impact. Concerns are valid, but the agreement's effects depend on implementation.
The treaty was adopted by consensus, not a formal vote, which means that governments, including the UK, virtue signaled approval without domestic scrutiny.
The countries not part of the WHO are Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and Taiwan. Liechtenstein, a UN member, collaborates via Switzerland and opts out due to its small size. Vatican City, not a UN member, has minimal global health involvement. Taiwan's exclusion stems from political tensions with Beijing, though it participates in some WHO activities as "Chinese Taipei."
The treaty is designed to address failings exposed by how countries "handled COVID-19."
It outlines legal commitments to:
– Share pathogen samples & genetic data
– Distribute vaccines & therapeutics "equitably"
– Strengthen international surveillance
– Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations
– Develop global digital health certification systems
World Health Assembly adopts historic Pandemic Agreement
This agreement is not limited to pandemic response. It's based on the WHO’s "One Health" framework, which views human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected. (interlinked / interlocked)
Critics (rightly) argue this broadens the WHO’s scope, allowing it to influence food systems, climate policy, agriculture, and land use under the guise of "pandemic prevention."
While the WHO cannot override national law, the treaty creates binding international obligations. Governments may use it to justify emergency laws or sweeping public health powers while shielding decisions behind the language of "international compliance" or "global coordination."
The WHO is not a democratic institution. Its Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, is not elected by citizens, but appointed via a process dominated by diplomatic negotiations between member states. His past controversies, including handling of the early COVID outbreak and ties to China, have fueled considerable concerns about impartiality.
The WHO’s top funders are not primarily governments. As of 2023, its largest contributors included:
– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
– GAVI Alliance
– UNICEF
– The European Commission
– Germany and the US
Private foundations now shape global public health priorities without any electoral mandate.
Among the more contentious provisions of the treaty are proposals to implement a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system. This would allow WHO to access pathogen samples from any country and redistribute pharmaceutical products under "equitable" frameworks — potentially overriding domestic vaccine supply chains.
The treaty also encourages states to adopt digital health documentation systems, which could evolve into permanent digital IDs tied to vaccination or health status. While presented as public health tools, such systems have been heavily criticised by civil liberties groups as intrusive, coercive, Orwellian and open to mission creep.
Several countries abstained or objected during the drafting phase. These include:
Poland, Israel, Italy, Russia, Slovakia, Iran, Algeria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Argentina, and Egypt.
Their stated concerns include loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity, and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.
In the UK, there has been virtually no parliamentary debate over the treaty. No formal statement has been made by the Prime Minister or Health Secretary. Despite the agreement’s long-term implications, the UK has participated in negotiations quietly, bypassing public scrutiny.
The adoption of this treaty reflects a broader trend:
The shift from nation-state governance to transnational managerialism. Under this model, decisions affecting hundreds of millions are increasingly shaped by busybody billionaire technocrats, NGOs, foundations, and UN agencies — none of whom are directly accountable to voters.
James Burnham's 1941 "The Managerial Revolution" explains this.
Burnham's idea of an unaccountable managerial class has gained traction among conservative intellectuals seeking to counteract the power of this class, viewing "woke" as the justifying ideology of the new class.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a structural change in how global policy is made — particularly in moments of crisis...which you can trace such crisis moments all the way back to the Black Death and the ensuing global policies that were added/changed.
What COVID 911 began, the WHO treaty formalizes:
Emergency governance, centralized authority, and the use of global health as a gateway to broader control.
If democratic governments can enter binding international agreements on pandemic policy without consulting their citizens, then who governs in a crisis?
The answer, increasingly, is:
Those you cannot remove from office.
The only way to remove them is you have to kill them. Just like back in ancient times.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a landmark. Not just in public health, but in global governance. It centralizes authority, weakens national sovereignty, and embeds unelected influence at the heart of crisis response.
The public was never asked.
Note this agreement is just an agreed upon adoption. It will be several years before any of it is implemented. Smaller countries/small populations will feel the WHO whip first and be used as trial & error tests. But, these parasites work on generational plans, bit by bit. The US will be fully exited from the WHO cult sometime next year and at least while Trump is in Office I'm not going to worry much about it. I'll still keep my ears open in the event their policy influence starts creeping into the USA.
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." – Thomas Sowell
