The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Man-Made Pandemics. Final version: Sept. 3, 2023

We start with a
history of biological arms control and rapidly move to the COVID
pandemic, eventually arriving at plans to protect the future.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Chem/Bio

Traditionally, the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been labelled Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, and Nuclear (CBRN).

The
people of the world don’t want them used on us—for they are cheap ways
to kill and maim large numbers of people quickly and indiscriminately.
And so international treaties were created to try to prevent their development (only in the later treaties) and use (in all the biological arms control treaties). First was the Geneva Protocol of 1925,
following the use of poison gases and limited biological weapons during
World War I, which banned the use of biological and chemical weapons in
war.  The US and many nations signed it, but it took 50 years for the
US to ratify it, and during those 50 years the US asserted it was not bound by the treaty.

The
US used both biological and chemical weapons during those 50 years. The
US almost certainly used biological weapons in the Korean War (see this, this, this and this)
and perhaps used both in Vietnam, which experienced an odd outbreak of
plague during the war. The use of napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange
(with its dioxin excipient causing massive numbers of birth defects and
other tragedies) and probably other chemical weapons like BZ (a hallucinogen/incapacitant) led to much pushback, especially since we had signed the Geneva Protocol and we were supposed to be a civilized nation.

In
1968 and 1969, two important books were published regarding our massive
stockpiling and use of these agents. They had a great influence on the
American psyche.  The first book, written by the young Seymour Hersh
about the US’ chemical and biological warfare program was titled Chemical and Biological Warfare; America’s Hidden Arsenal. In 1969 Congressman Richard D. McCarthy, a former newspaperman from Buffalo, NY published The Ultimate Folly: War by Pestilence, Asphyxiation and Defoliation about the US production and use of chemical and biological weapons. Prof. Matthew Meselson’s review of the book noted,

Our
operation, “Flying Ranch Hand,” has sprayed anti-plant chemicals over
an area almost the size of the state of Massachusetts, over 10 per cent of its cropland. “Ranch Hand” no longer has much to do with the official justification of preventing ambush. Rather, it has become a kind of environmental warfare, devastating vast tracts of forest in order to facilitate our aerial reconnaissance. Our use of “super tear gas” (it is also a powerful lung irritant) has escalated from the originally announced purpose of saving lives in “riot control-like situations” to the full-scale combat use of gas artillery shells, gas rockets and gas bombs to enhance the killing power of conventional high explosive and flame weapons. Fourteen million pounds have been used thus far, enough to cover all of Vietnam with a field effective concentration. Many nations, including some of our own allies have expressed the opinion that this kind of gas warfare violates the Geneva Protocol, a view shared by McCarthy.

A Biological Weapons Convention to End Biological Warfare

Amid
great pushback over US conduct in Vietnam, and seeking to burnish his
presidency, President Nixon announced to the world in November 1969 that
the US was going to end its offensive biowarfare program (but not the
chemical program). Following pointed reminders that Nixon had not
eschewed the use of toxins, in February 1970 Nixon announced we would
get rid of our toxin weapons also.  These included snake, snail, frog, fish, bacterial and fungal toxins that could be used for assassination, incapacitation and other purposes.

It
has been claimed that Nixon’s declarations resulted from careful
calculations that the US was far ahead technically of most other nations
in its chemical and nuclear weapons. But biological weapons were
considered the “poor man’s atomic bomb” and required much less
sophistication to produce. Therefore, the US was not far ahead in the
biological weapons arena. By banning this class of weapon, the US would
gain strategically. 

Nixon told the world that the US would
initiate an international treaty to prevent the use of these weapons
ever again. And we did so: the 1972 Convention
on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, or Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) for short, which entered into force in 1975.

But in 1973 genetic engineering (recombinant DNA) was discovered
by Americans Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, which changed the
biological warfare calculus. Now the US had regained a technological
advantage for this type of endeavor.

The Biological
Weapons Convention established conferences to be held every 5 years to
strengthen the treaty, making it verifiable and enforceable. The
expectation was that these would add a method to call for ‘challenge
inspections’ to prevent nations from cheating, and would add sanctions
(punishments) if nations failed to comply with the treaty. However,
since 1991 the US has consistently blocked
the addition of protocols that would have an impact on cheating. By
now, everyone accepts that cheating occurs and is likely widespread.

A
leak in an anthrax production facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR in 1979
caused the deaths of about 60 people. While the USSR tried a sloppy
cover-up, blaming consumption of contaminated black market meat, this
was a clear BWC violation to all those knowledgeable about anthrax. 

US experiments with anthrax production during the Clinton administration, detailed by Judith Miller et al. in the 2001 book Germs, were also thought by experts to have transgressed the BWC.

Meanwhile, a chemical weapons treaty
did get negotiated, came into force in 1997, and it contains provisions
for challenge inspections and punishments.  It has taken many years,
but by 2022 all declared stocks of chemical weapons had been destroyed by the USA, by Russia, and the other 191 member nation signatories.

It
is now 2023, and during the 48 years the Biological Weapons Convention
has been in force the wall it was supposed to build against the
development, production, and use of biological weapons has been steadily
eroded. Meanwhile, especially since the 2001 anthrax letters, many
nations (with the US at the forefront) have been building up their
“biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” capacities. 

Under the
guise of preparing their defenses against biowarfare and pandemics,
nations have conducted “dual-use” (both offensive and defensive)
research and development, which has led to the creation of more deadly
and more transmissible microorganisms. And employing new verbiage to
shield this effort from scrutiny, biological warfare research was
renamed as “gain-of-function” research.

How Would You Create a Biological Warfare Agent?

Gain-of-function
research is a euphemism for biological warfare research aka germ
warfare research. It is so risky that funding it was banned by the US
government (but only for SARS coronaviruses and avian flu viruses) in
2014 after a public outcry from hundreds of scientists. Then in 2017
Drs. Tony Fauci and Francis Collins lifted the moratorium, with no real
safeguards in place. Fauci and Collins even had the temerity to publish their opinion that the risk from this gain-of-function research was ‘worth it.’ 

What
does gain-of-function actually mean? It means that scientists are able
to use a variety of techniques to turn ordinary or pathogenic viruses
and bacteria into biological weapons. The research is justified by the
claim that scientists can get out ahead of nature and predict what might be a future pandemic threat, or what another nation might use as a bioweapon. The functions gained
by the viruses or other microorganisms to turn them into biological
warfare agents consist of two general but overlapping categories: enhanced transmission and enhanced pathogenicity (illness severity).

1) Enhanced transmissibility may result from:

a)  needing fewer viral or bacterial copies to cause infection,

b)  causing the generation of higher viral or bacterial titers,

c)  a new mode of spread, such as adding airborne transmission to a virus that previously only spread through bodily fluids,

d)
 expanding the range of susceptible organs (aka expanded tissue
tropism); for example, not only respiratory secretions but also urine or
stool might transmit the virus, which was found in SARS-CoV-2, 

e)
 expanding the host range; for example, the virus is passaged through
humanized mice and thus acclimated to the human ACE-2 receptor,
infecting humans preferably to bats or other animals, which was found in
SARS-CoV-2, 

f)  improving the ability to enter cells; for example, by adding a furin cleavage site, which was found in SARS-CoV-2

2) Enhanced pathogenicity:

a)
 Instead of causing a milder (or no) illness, the pathogen would be
reengineered to cause severe illness, incapacity or death, using a
variety of different strategies, including the production of toxins or
ability to evade immunity.  

b)  SARS-CoV-2 had unusual homologies
(identical short segments of nucleotides) to human tissues and the HIV
virus, which may have caused or contributed to the late autoimmune stage
of illness, an impaired immune response and ‘long COVID.’ 

Funding for (Natural) Pandemics, Including Yearly Influenza, was Lumped Together with Biological Defense Funding

Perhaps
the comingling of funding was designed to make it harder for Congress
and the public to understand what was being funded, and how much
taxpayer funding was going to gain-of-function work?  Understanding the
huge sums involved might have led Americans to question why this
research was being done at all, given its prohibition by the Biological
Weapons Convention, and could have raised additional questions about its
lack of benefit for human health. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, a
physician and virologist, told
Congress in March of 2023 that gain-of-function research had not
resulted in a single beneficial drug, vaccine, or therapeutic to his
knowledge.

So-called nonprofits and universities (for example, EcoHealth Alliance and its affiliation with Professor Jonna Mazet
at the University of California, Davis veterinary school) were used as
financial intermediaries to obscure the fact that US taxpayers were
supporting scientists in dozens of foreign countries, including China,
for research that included capturing dangerous viruses and performing
gain-of-function work on coronaviruses.

Perhaps to
keep the lucrative funding going, government agencies have fanned the
fear of pandemics over the past several decades. Huge sums have been
spent on alleged “pandemic preparedness” over the past 20 years, routing
funds through many federal and state agencies. President Biden’s
proposed 2024 CDC budget
requested “$20 billion in mandatory funding across DHHS for pandemic
preparedness” while the DOD, DHS, USAID and the State Department have
additional budgets for pandemic preparedness, for spending on both
domestic and international projects. 

The current
jargon for this spending is pandemic prevention, preparedness and
response or PPPR.  While this may be a feel-good way for politicians to
spend money, scientifically there is no known way to prevent pandemics,
and the methods that governments are spending money on are actually
going to make this problem a great deal worse.  The concept of a
“response”:  withholding cheap, available generic drugs in favor of the
warp speed development of patentable drugs and vaccines, which will
undergo minimal testing and have no liability, is another disaster in
the making.  Pandemic preparedness is a myth, a smokescreen behind which
lies a fascist approach to social management. David Bell elaborates on this.

The Steady Drumbeat of Pandemic Fear

Although
the 20th century experienced only three significant pandemics (the
Spanish Flu of 1918-19 and two influenza pandemics in 1957 and 1968) the
mass media and World Health Organization have presented us with almost
non-stop pandemics during the 21st century: SARS (2002-3), avian flu
(2004-on), swine flu (2009-10), Ebola (2014; 2018-19), Zika (2016),
COVID (2020-2023), and monkeypox (2022-23). And we are incessantly told
that more are coming, and that they are likely to be worse. WHO
Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has declared three “public
health emergencies of international concern” during his six years in
office.

We have been assaulted with warnings and threats for over 2
decades to induce a deep fear of infectious diseases. It seems to have
worked.

Illogical Responses to Odd Pandemics

The genomes of both SARS-CoV-2 (start at minute 5) and the 2022 monkeypox
(MPOX) virus led to early suspicions that both were pathogens
originating in laboratories. The group of virologists assembled by Drs.
Fauci and Farrar for a secret phone call on February 1, 2020 identified 6 unusual (probably lab-derived) parts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome–and more have been suggested subsequently. 

I
do not know if these viruses leaked accidentally or were deliberately
released, but I am leaning toward the conclusion that both were
deliberately released, based on the locations where they first appeared,
the well-orchestrated but faked videos of people dropping dead in the
streets rolled out by the mass media for COVID, the desperate coverup of
lab origin for both, and the illogical and harmful official responses
to each. In neither case was the public given accurate information about
the infections’ severity or treatments, and the responses by Western
governments never made scientific sense. Why wouldn’t
you treat cases early, the way doctors treat everything else? It seemed
that our governments were trading on the fact that few people knew
enough about viruses and therapeutics to make independent assessments
about the information they were being fed.

Yet by July and August
2021, when it became crystal clear to health authorities that the
vaccines were not preventing cases or transmission, there was no
corresponding course correction. Instead, the federal government doubled
down, imposing vaccine mandates on 100 million Americans in September 2021 in spite of  ‘the
science.’ Heavy-handed, universal medical mandates can never be
justified due to human beings’ different risk-benefit profiles.  But
when the mandated vaccine failed to prevent spread to others, failed to
provide herd immunity and was known to cause harm, mandating it became
malicious.

There has been no accurate statement yet from any federal agency about the lack of utility of cotton and surgical masks for an airborne virus
(which is probably why the US government and WHO delayed acknowledging
airborne spread by COVID for many months); the lack of efficacy of
social distancing for an airborne virus; and the risks and poor efficacy
of 2 dangerous oral drugs (paxlovid and molnupiravir) purchased for $billions by the US government for COVID treatment, even without a doctor’s prescription.

Never
have any federal agencies acknowledged the truth about the COVID
vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Instead, the CDC turns definitional and
statistical cartwheels so it can continue to claim they are “safe and
effective.” Even worse, with all that we know, a third generation COVID
vaccine is to be rolled out for this fall and the FDA has announced that yearly boosters are planned.

All
this goes on, even a year after we learned (with continuing
corroborations) that children and working age adults are dying at rates 25 percent or more above the expected averages, and the vascular side effects of vaccination are the only reasonable explanation.

Maiming with Myocarditis

Both of the two US monkeypox/smallpox vaccines (Jynneos and ACAM2000)
are known to cause myocarditis, as do all 3 COVID vaccines currently
available in the US:  the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and
the Novavax vaccine. The Novavax vaccine was first associated with myocarditis during its clinical trial, but this was downplayed, and it was authorized and rolled out anyway.  The Novavax vaccine was considered a solution for those who refused the mRNA vaccines due to the use of fetal tissue in their manufacture.

Here is what the FDA’s reviewers wrote about the cardiac side effects noted in the Jynneos clinical trials:

Up to 18.4% of subjects in 2 studies developed post-vaccination elevation of troponin [a cardiac muscle enzyme signifying cardiac damage].
However, all of these troponin elevations were asymptomatic and without
a clinically associated event or other sign of myopericarditis. p. 198

The applicant has committed to conduct an observational, post-marketing study as part of their routine PVP. The sponsor will collect data on cardiac events that occur and are assessed as a routine part of medical care. p. 200

In
other words, while the only way to cause an elevated troponin level is
to break down cardiac muscle cells, the FDA did not require a specific
study to evaluate the extent of cardiac damage that might be caused by Jynneos when it issued the vaccine’s 2019 license.

How
frequently does myocarditis occur after these vaccines?  If you use
elevated cardiac enzymes (above twice the upper limit of normal) as your
marker, ACAM2000 caused
this in one in thirty people receiving it for the first time. If you
use other measures like abnormal cardiac MRI or echo, according to the
CDC it occurs in one in 175 first-time vaccine recipients.  

I have not seen a study with rates of myocarditis for Jynneos, but there was an unspecified elevation of cardiac enzymes in 10 percent and 18 percent of Jynneos recipients in two unpublished prelicensure studies available on the FDA website.
My guess for the mRNA COVID vaccines is that they cause myocarditis, if
defined as a rise in troponin levels following vaccination, in the same
general range (between 1 in 5 and 1 in 250 recipients per dose). 
However, the vast majority of cases are probably asymptomatic and will
not be diagnosed unless you screen for them.

Why would our governments push 5 separate vaccines all known to cause myocarditis
on young people who are at extremely low risk from COVID?  Monkeypox
simply causes a few eruptions (like shingles) for 1-4 weeks unless the
infected person is severely immunocompromised.

Why
dangerous vaccines are being pushed on young, low-risk populations for
whom the health risks from vaccination are considerably greater than the
risks from the disease is an important question. It does not make
medical sense. Especially for a monkeypox vaccine (Jynneos) that probably does not work.  Jynneos didn’t prevent infection in the monkeys in whom it was tested, nor did it do well in people.

The
health agencies first incited terror with apocalyptic predictions; then
demanded patients be medically neglected until their lips turned blue;
and finally enforced vaccinations and treatments that were tantamount to
malpractice. 

There can be no question about it: our health
agencies are guilty of malfeasance, misrepresentation, and deliberate
infliction of harm on their own populations.

COVID Vaccines: The Chicken or the Egg?

The
health authorities could have just been ignorant—that could possibly
explain the first few months of the COVID vaccines’ rollout. But once
they figured out, and even announced in August 2021 that the vaccines did not prevent catching COVID or transmitting it, why did our health authorities then mandate
COVID vaccines for 100 million mostly low-risk Americans who were at
greater risk from vaccine side effects than from COVID? And why did they
double down on mandates as time went on and newer variants were less
and less virulent? 

And that wasn’t all the federal authorities did.  Understanding that mandates could not legally be issued unless the vaccines were licensed (not just authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA)) FDA issued a license for the Pfizer vaccine on August 23, 2021.
It is important to understand that the licensed vaccine had liability
attached:  if it caused injuries, the manufacturer could be sued for
damages.  While the authorized (EUA) COVID vaccines had all liability waived for the manufacturers, government officials and healthcare workers administering them under the PREP Act.

So the FDA performed a deliberate bait and switch. It led Americans to believe they were receiving a licensed product that had gone through a full FDA approval process,
when in fact what they actually received was the EUA product that was
unlicensed, and for which they could not sue if injured.  FDA hid this
by using peculiar language when it issued the license to Pfizer, by claiming the two vaccines were “legally distinct” in a footnote.

Once
you understand these basic facts, you realize that perhaps the vaccines
were not made for the pandemic, and instead the pandemic was made to
roll out the vaccines. While we cannot be certain, we should at least be
suspicious. And the fact that the US contracted for 10 doses per person (review purchases here, here, here, here and here) and so did the European Union (here and here) and Canada,
it should make us even more suspicious.  There is no medical
justification for agreeing to purchase so many doses of vaccines at a
time when the virus was rapidly mutating, the vaccines’ ability to
prevent infection and transmission was questionable and its safety was
suspect or worse.

Australia bought 8 doses per person. By December 20, 2020 New Zealand had secured
triple the vaccines it needed, and offered to share some with nearby
nations. Why would governments buy so many doses per person? Three
maybe. But ten? Even if yearly boosters were expected, there was no
reason to sign contracts for enough vaccine for nine years. No one has
ever explained the reason for these excessive, lockstep purchases by so
many nations.

Furthermore, you don’t need a vaccine
passport (aka digital ID, aka a phone app that in Europe included a
mechanism for an electronic payments system) unless you are monitoring whether people are up to date on their boosters.
Were the vaccines conceived of as the means for putting our
vaccinations and most importantly, shifting our financial transactions
online, all to be managed on a phone app? This would be an attack on privacy
as well as the enabling step for a China-style social credit system in
the West. Interestingly, vaccine passports were already being planned for the European Union pre-COVID, in 2018.  Why?

A
Pandemic Treaty and Amendments:  Brought to You by the Same People who
Mismanaged the Past 3 Years, to Save Us from Themselves?

The
same US government, other governments and the WHO that imposed
draconian measures on citizens to force us to be vaccinated; take
dangerous, expensive, experimental drugs; withheld effective treatments;
refused to tell us that most people who required ICU care for COVID
were vitamin D-deficient; and never said that taking vitamin D would
lessen COVID’s severity–decided in 2021 we suddenly needed an
international pandemic treaty.  Why?  To prevent and ameliorate future
pandemics or biological warfare events… so we would not suffer again as
we did with the COVID pandemic, they insisted. The WHO would manage it.

What the WHO and our governments conveniently failed to mention is that we suffered so badly from the COVID catastrophe because of their medical mismanagement and merciless economic shutdowns and mismanagement. According to the World Bank,
an additional 70 million people were forced into extreme poverty in
2020 alone. This was due to policies issued by our nations’ rulers,
their handpicked advisors and the World Health Organization, which
issued guidance to shut down economic activity that most nations adopted
without question. The WHO is acutely aware of the consequences children
have had to pay for the economic lockdowns it imposed, having published the following:

Malnutrition
persisted in all its forms, with children paying a high price: in 2020,
over 149 million under-fives are estimated to have been stunted, or too
short for their age; more than 45 million – wasted, or too thin for
their height…

Starvation may have
killed more people than COVID, and they were disproportionately the
youngest, rather than the oldest. Yet the tone deaf WHO prattles on
about equity, diversity, and solidarity—having itself caused the worst
starvation crisis of our lifetime, which was not due to nature but was
man-made. 

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the words, “I’m
from the WHO, and I’m here to help” should be the most terrifying words
in the English language, after what we learned from the COVID fiasco.

How
can anyone take seriously claims by the same officials who mishandled
COVID that they want to spare us from another medical and economic
disaster–by employing the same strategies they applied to COVID, after
they masterminded the last disaster?  And the fact that no governments
or health officials have admitted their errors should convince us never
to let them manage anything for us ever again. Why would we let them
draw up an international pandemic treaty and new amendments to the
existing International Health Regulations (IHR) that will bind our governments to obey the WHO’s dictates forever? 

Those
dictates, by the way, include vaccine development at breakneck speed,
the power to enforce which drugs we may use and which drugs will be
prohibited, and the requirement to monitor media for “misinformation”
and impose censorship on our media so that only the WHO’s public health
narrative will be conveyed to the public. Which is a First Amendment
violation.

The WHO’s Draft Pandemic Treaty Requires the
Sharing of Potential Pandemic Pathogens. This is a Euphemism for
Bioweapons Proliferation.

Obviously, the best way to
spare us from another pandemic is to immediately stop funding
gain-of-function (GOF) research and get rid of all existing GOF
organisms. Let all nations build huge bonfires and burn up their evil
creations at the same time, while allowing other nations to inspect
their biological facilities and records.

But the WHO in its June 2023 Bureau Text of the Draft Pandemic Treaty
has a plan that is the exact opposite of this. In the WHO’s draft
treaty, which most nations’ rulers appear to have bought into, all
governments will share all viruses and bacteria they come up with that
are determined to have “pandemic potential” — share them with the WHO
and other governments, putting their genomic sequences online. No, I am
not making this up. (See screenshots from the draft treaty below, which calls for “global sharing of emerging pathogens with pandemic potential.”)
Then the WHO and all the Fauci’s of the world would gain access to all
the newly identified dangerous viruses. Would hackers also gain access
to the sequences? This pandemic plan should make you feel anything but
secure. 

Fauci, Tedros, and their ilk at the WHO, and those
managing biodefense and biomedical research for nation states are on
one side, the side that gains access to ever more potential biological
weapons, and the rest of us are on the other, at their mercy.

This poorly conceptualized plan used to be called proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and it is almost certainly illegal. (For example, see Security Council resolution 1540 adopted in 2004.) The US state department considers biological weapons proliferation “a grave threat.”  But this is the plan of the WHO and of many of our leaders. Governments will all share the weapons. 

The Genomic Sequencing Conundrum

And governments are to commit to building biolabs that must include genomic sequencing.
No explanation has been forthcoming about why each nation needs to
install its own genome sequencing laboratories. Of course, they would
sequence the many viruses that will be detected as a result of the
pathogen surveillance activities nations must perform, according to the
WHO treaty draft. But the same techniques can be used to sequence human
genomes. The fact that the EU, UK, and US
are currently engaged in projects to sequence nearly 2 million of their
citizens’ genomes provides a hint that they may want to collect
additional genomes of Africans, Asians, and others.

Genomic
sequencing might fly as simply sharing state-of-the-art science with
our less-developed neighbors. But it is curious that there is so much
emphasis on genomics, compared to the absence of any discussion about
developing repurposed drugs for pandemics in either the draft treaty or
IHR amendments. Some might suppose the proposed treaty was a disguised
business plan for the biodefense industry.

We must not forget that virtually all developed nations, in lockstep, restricted the use of safe generic hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin,
and related drugs during the pandemic. In retrospect, the only logical
explanation for this unprecedented action was to preserve the market for
expensive patentable drugs and vaccines, and possibly to prolong the
pandemic. 

US law
only allows the use of unlicensed, emergency use authorized (EUA)
vaccines and drugs if there is no adequate, approved (licensed) and
available drug for the same purpose.  If the US government admitted that
existing, approved drugs could prevent and/or treat COVID, it would
need to immediately revoke all the EUAs issued to vaccines and drugs for
COVID, and none could be used any longer.  This is one explanation for
why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been vilified and suppressed
by our state and federal agencies.

Genomes offer great
potential profits, as they may reveal the secrets of immunity to certain
diseases. However, they may also reveal genetic weaknesses at which
weapons could be aimed.   They may also provide the substrate for
transhumanist experiments that could include designer babies, among
other things.

The latest version (aka the WHO Bureau’s text) of the pandemic treaty can be accessed here. I provide screenshots below to illustrate additional points.