WHO Pandemic Cult

by Amelia Hoskins · Published 11. January 2024 · Updated 13. February 2024

The WHO and Pharmatechtopia bioweapon creation plan

To continue the ludicrous control measures started in 2020, the WHO plan amendments to the global pandemic agreement document to be pushed through without enough scrutiny time. The US isn't even sending a delegate to 154th Session of the WHO Executive Board re January 27th deadline meeting to agree or disagree any of the 197 amendments.

"A venture capital prospectus; its a wealth transfer negotiation; nothing to do with health" ~ James Roguski

Among critiques are: Meryl Nass doctor in Maine USA is fiercely campaigning to stop the Treaty being signed up to. Her Substack blog is continually on the campaign. Recent interview with Greg Hunter, USA Watchdog. Andrew Bridgen MP in UK, gave a brilliant address to a Parliamentary Committee following the 116,000 signature petition in UK. And James Roguski.

“This is a trade dispute”.

2 years ago poor nations wanted all the drugs for covid they believed were necessary. They asked WHO to ensure equitable access to pandemic related products. WHO havn't set standards for the purity of pharmalogical or biological products; listed in Article 21 which they are supposed to be regulating. Now poor countries want intellectual knowhow for the treatments. The WHO want to dictate that richer countries can build manufacturing facilities for poorer ones. African countries saw that Pfizer and Moderna took the genetic information, turned it into the boosters making $billions. So now a second proposal in ‘Pandemic Treaty’ (misleading name) is ‘pathogen access and benefit sharing system’.

“They want to force all of the smaller nations to build out their laboratory and genomic sequencing testing and surveillance systems to go searching everywhere possible for a pathogen with pandemic potential”

In the proposed agreement October 2023, in return for handing over all these genomic sequences, 20% of all the products that might be made because of that would be given to the WHO to distribute as they see fit. Smaller nations want better deal so thats holding up negotiations. “In return for their biological weapons raw material they want more than 20%!”

James Roduski Substack. SCREW THE WHO

'Covid 19 jabs are not biological - 100% synthetic.'
Dr Stuckelberger, who has worked with WHO on life longetivity, suspected something wrong and big from the start. Stuckelberger believes the mRNA narrative was a gov psyop to deceive researchers and make them think the shots were biological. When Stew asks her “Are they a weapon”? she adamantly says "Yes, of course".

“Graphene oxide is the element of the hard disk of this computerised bimolecular lipids that are giving signals to the body, and creating nano-circuits in the human body.”

Dr Robert O Young augments a similar idea in an article:

'people inoculated with the CoV-19 are NOT shedding proteins but are receiving and transmitting pulsating radio and microwave radiation linked to them from cell towers and satellite transmissions. This directed frequency and human connection from the cell towers and/or satellites creates a quantum link to the biosensor graphene iron oxide material now contained in the brain, lungs, heart, muscles, bone, fat and reproductive organs.'

Ana Mihalcea have shown active self assembling nano tech in microscopy). See Mihalcea

Andrew Bridgen MP - Extracts from his speech to the Committee
“Unless a high number of countries will actively voice their opposition and rejections the adoption of the current published version dated Feb. 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO lockdown and lockstep dictats”

"They insist neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication is that state representatives at the World Health Assembly, not the WHO itself as if that makes any difference to our loss of sovereignty from the UK. The WHO position raises the real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of whats being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30th October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter info force after a two thirds vote in favour of WHO".

“Opposition is needed to derail this project as it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and bilateral aids. They are likely to make opposition by lower income countries extremely difficult to sustain, so much of the world is looking to our parliament to step up to the plate and protect democracy around the world."

"So the relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened but why any sovereignty would be forfeit by democratic states to an organisation that is significantly funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self proclaimed philanthropists and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open transparent democracies, so why would we do this? If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples based on false claims by governments and the WHO then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders are working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries do have fundamental laws for dealing with these practices.”

The WHO's early promotional brochure

Note in Slide 3: 'legally binding agreement' - 'sharing of data, genetic data, samples'

Note in Slide 6:

'Misinformation and disinformation. Member States recognize the need for national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization that undermine public health.'

The section implying 'misinformation', which is a move towards censorship. Pharma companies and governments have been cracking down on information spreading on social media. Doctors and journalists have been giving information since 2020, from researched statistics, showing that all the WHO approves of is not always healthy or truthful! Much of this has actually been truthful and 'missing' information.

Notes from Santilli video:

"Criminal Tedros will have plenary power to introduce public health emergency"

Delegations from 194 countries will vote. They believed they had an 18 month period to opt out, but it has been changed to 6 months. They either have no idea or they are complicit. Document isn't even in their languages.

US filed some amendments to International Health Regulations. April 12th 2022 they filed document, giving total control to central authority. Surrendered authority to WHO, dictatorial power to Tedros: (Bill Gates and China in charge). (1940 treaty with WHO. Modified in 2005.). In other words, the "WHO and UN flags will be flying over America". And the world.

This process began this before Trump sworn in, with changes in terminology for potential pandemics. During any crisis which affects public health, all countries must follow what the WHO says; (actually Gates and GAVI and big pharma).

This plan to give Tedros power to declare emergencies is comprehensive. Travel could be closed down. A public health emergency could be placed after testing waste water. It even includes power over atomic energy, which could close down power. (we already see France closing many nuclear power stations for maintenance).

Santilli quotes that James Rogusky done deepest research. Peter Breggin documents that Chinese government is in charge. 'Covid 19 and the Global Predators'.