The WHO Treaty

The WHO Treaty is designed to take control of the entire world's policies and health data in the event of a new world health emergency. This would have the effect of surrendering individual nations' sovereignties, regardless of whether they had been effected by the perceived outbreak, or not.

There has been massive public outcry and protests, which were heavily backed by many politicians, barristers and health experts. In the quest to have central information, people's privacy will be heavily compromised. There is concern about the digital ID, health passports, credit scores (that would deny people the freedom to spend their own money as desired and their right to travel). People will lose their bodily autonomy to choose to decline/accept experimental medications, and to refuse to have nano technology inserted.

The summit, on May 25 2024, to implement the draft International Pandemic Agreement failed due to a technicality (causing the cut-off date to be missed). However, the globalist agenda for a one-world-governance has not gone away. WHO officials are now coming together once more to get this treaty implemented. They are doing so under the guise of it being a necessity for international health preservation / public safety.

Complacency would leave this agenda open to being passed at a later date...

Zero Draft of the WHO CA+ for consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body

WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on. pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (“WHO CA+”)1 Feb 2023

For full document, click here.


article 26.1 An Bunreacht na hEireann Reference of Bills to the Supreme Court

Article 26 of the Constitution provides that the President of Ireland may, after consultation with the Council of State, refer Bills of the type prescribed in that Article to the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether any such Bill or specified provision(s) thereof is repugnant to the Constitution. There have been 15 such references to date.

See here 15 citations in The Supreme Court of Ireland website.

The case against WHO's Director-General Tedros Adhanom

The Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom has repeatedly and in multiple ways violated the Constitution of  the World Health Organization (WHO) during his tenure as Director-General of the  organization.

Misconduct at WHO

Does it make sense for Tedros to be the investigator of the WHO misdemeanours when he has been accused of so many violations himself? Does it smack of 'the fox guarding the henhouse'?

notice to cure and remedy part 3 of Affidavit

This is an extract of the notice sent on January 15th 2024 demanding cure and remedy sent to the Irish Government and several international politicians to highlight a breach of contract that, for which We, the people of Éire, require a remedy.

The 15 ministers within the Irish Government have taken a dictatorial role by using the emergency powers Acts of 1939 and 1976 consecutively, abridged with Articles 23.1.1, Article 24.1, Article 28.3.3 and 29.4.1 and 29.4.2, and in doing so have weaponised the powers that they have obtained by perpetually manufacturing crises, when Ireland is not at war.

In 1939 a subsection was added to the original provisions to the Irish constitution, An Bunreacht. This is an

Crotty Vs An Taoiseach

CROTTY v. TAOISEACH(CONSTIT. VALIDITY)
CROTTY v. AN TAOISEACH & OTHERS
[1987] IESC 4
The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April 1951), the European Economic Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March 1957). No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State".Crotty v an Taoiseach and Others - Case Law - VLEX 793401417
https://ie.vlex.com/vid/crotty-v-an-taoiseach-793401417

Estonia rejects WHO Treaty
Estonia signatures rejecting WHO Treaty
Irish Times Crotty Vs An Taoiseach & Others
UPCA would result in relinquishing sovereignty

If the UPC Agreement is passed, we would be ceding further sovereignty and authority to Europe. This is contrary to Articles 1, Article 5 and Article 6.1 of An Bunreacht Na hÉireann.

Crotty Vs An Taoiseach was a Judicial review of executive powers. It shows that the people of Ireland can have any Bills, Legislation or Acts referred to the Supreme Court for judicial determination to see if they are in harmony with the provisions of An Bunreacht. If they are found to be repugnant to the Irish Constitution, they must be nullified and deemed 'null and void'.

Link to original 2012 article, click here.


WHO Pandemic Treaty: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly – An Interview With Larry

Inside View 14/09/2023  Vijay Shankar Balakrishnan, Health Policy Watch

Below are the questions put to Larry. Click here for the full interview including responses.
"●: What is a pandemic treaty?
●: What does it entail?
●: Based on your observations of the draft versions of the treaty, where are the opportunities for an “accord”?
●: There has also been a lot of “discord” during the pandemic accord negotiations. Which countries are contributing to these disagreements, and why?
●: What are your thoughts on the treaty’s negotiation mechanisms for promoting timely information sharing in the context of national interest conflicts?
●: What are the gaps in the draft treaty?
What are their origins, and what are some suggested solutions?
●: What are the main stumbling blocks to a robust treaty?
●: Could you comment on mechanisms the United States, Africa, and the European Union suggested?
●: How confident are you in incentivizing compliance, given the IHR enforcement issues during the COVID-19 pandemic?
●: Why prioritize incentives over sanctions, especially when some experts argue for stronger enforcement measures?
●: How will negotiators balance accountability and sovereignty when implementing compliance measures?
●: Will equity discussions lead to concrete actions for fair access during health crises?
●: What are the potential consequences of the draft Accord’s narrow focus on health-centric solutions?
●: What’s behind the resistance to the UN High-Level Meeting, and how might it affect the Geneva discussions?
●: What role does the pharma industry play in shaping the treaty, and how do we differentiate responsible advocacy from profit-focused lobbying?
●: Why is the draft UN Political Declaration not ambitious, and how can it be strengthened, especially regarding the ‘Global Health Threats Council’?
●: How can WHO and the UN tackle misinformation while preserving citizen privacy and free speech on social media through collaboration with governments?
'At the opening of the 73rd WHO Africa regional meeting in August, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that the slow pace of negotiations has put the pandemic accord at risk of missing the May 2024 deadline'.
●: What’s your take on the pandemic treaty timeline, balancing speed and thoroughness, and a realistic estimate for an ideal agreement’s timing?
●: How do we address the draft treaty’s health-centric focus criticized by some, considering the need for a broader approach to pandemic response during negotiations?
●: What’s the current status of discussions on the Pandemic Fund, and how might it impact the treaty?
●: How do initiatives like medical countermeasures and mRNA tech-transfer hubs fit into treaty discussions, and what’s your perspective on their impact, given the crisis faced by initiatives like ProMED?
●: What do you think about the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board‘s key asks for the UN HLM declaration on the treaty negotiations, like changing the language from ‘acknowledge’ to ‘commit’?
●: What do you think about the social media backlash WHO has been experiencing, regarding social media listening/surveillance, which seemed to be included in the treaty draft and poses privacy threats to citizens in countries where social media expressions are turned against them?
●: How did the misconception that WHO agreements, like a pandemic accord, would erode national sovereignty start, and what can be done to combat this misinformation going forward?"

WHO Treaty

The WHO Treaty is designed to take control of the entire world's policies, and health data, in the event of a new pandemic. This would have had the effect of surrendering individual nations' sovereignties, regardless of whether they had been effected by the perceived outbreak, or not.

While the current recent summit to implement the draft has failed due to a technicality (causing them to miss the cut-off date). However, the globalist agenda has not gone away. The WHO officials are now coming together once more to get this passed. They are doing so under the guise of it being a necessity for health international health preservation / public safety.

For more on this topic, click here

WHO failure to reach a pandemic agreement

While the WHO Treaty draft legislation has been shelved for now. Click for full article

WHO efforts to draft a pandemic treaty falter as countries disagree

Rich and poor nations have not found grounds to agree on a pandemic treaty. Concerns that it would remove the autonomy of sovereign nations to decide on their response to the threat of international diseases.

World Health Assembly hopes to reinforce pandemic preparedness

Have nations awoken to the surrender of sovereignty as they reject the WHO pandemic agreement?

Click here: full article

The June Referendum on the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) has been deferred to another date despite having been passed by the Irish Government in 2013. It requires relinquishing further Irish sovereignty so that the global corporations gain additional strength.

The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), providing for the setting up of an International Court between contracting states, was signed in February 2013 by 25 EU Member States, including Ireland.

An amendment to Article 29 of the Constitution to add the UPC Agreement as an international agreement to the Constitution would be required before Ireland could join the UPC, as it entails a transfer of jurisdiction in patent litigation from the Irish courts to an international court. The General Scheme of the Bill proposes to insert a new subsection 11 in section 4 of Article 29, providing that the State may ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court signed at Brussels on February 19, 2013.