The idea behind the upcoming session of the World Health Assembly, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, was to start sketching out a new world order to handle future health crises, NPR reported last month.

Tedros was referring to the convening of a special session of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) governing body – the World Health Assembly – on 29 November to begin talks on a new global treaty covering pandemics.

“You need laws and rules that bring obligations to countries. That’s what we miss. And I hope countries will agree to a binding pact so that pandemics can be managed better,” Tedros said.

Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Center at the Graduate Institute of Geneva believes the world desperately needs an international framework, “after arguably the greatest shared global catastrophe since the Second World War,” she asked, “are our leaders going to show even a fraction of the ambition, a fraction of the vision that we saw back in 1945?”

During the 41^st session of the Corona Investigative Committee Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a whistle-blower from the WHO, said the rules under which countries work with WHO virtually put WHO in charge of all rules and formal edicts – with Bill Gates unofficially as part of the executive board as if he were a member state.

Tedros is a man surrounded by controversy.  “He is a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party that analysts have listed as a perpetrator of terrorism,” Breitbart reported early last year.  In Mr. Global’s eyes, Tedros is therefore perhaps an ideal person to be sketching out a new world order and “negotiating” a global pandemic treaty on their behalf.

“Mr. Global” is Catherine Austin Fitts’ nickname for the committee that runs the world.  She admits she doesn’t fully understand how it works at the top, but she does know that the decision-making is highly centralised, it’s most likely run by committee, and the members are the prisoners of 50 years of secrecy.

The idea of a global pandemic treaty first came to public awareness in March when 24 global leaders penned a joint letter calling for a new global treaty.  “The planned treaty appears to align very closely with the Great Reset goals of Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum’s promotion of the Reset even employs matching terminology, describing ‘leaders’ who ‘find themselves at a historic crossroads’,” wrote LifeSite News.

In the joint letter, the 24 argued that a treaty similar to that reached in the wake of World War II was needed to build cross-border cooperation, Unity News Network reported.  The signatories said: “At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system.  The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism …”

“There is a tremendous amount of money since World War II that constantly disappears through the financial system,” Austin Fitts said during an interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola.

It would be useful to know which, in particular, 1945 ambition and vision Moon was urging “our leaders to show.”

Plague Laws

Last month experts from around the world attended rallies and press conferences in Switzerland and Italy to support the worldwide resistance against the global war on freedom and democracy.

One of those experts was Austin Fitts who at a press conference in Switzerland explained that although this is not the first time in history that plague laws have been used to centralise control, the Covid laws are particularly draconian, because “now with advances in digital technology, we are looking at complete control, through the banking system, of 100% of all assets, ultimately.”

“Vaccine passports will not be about health. Vaccine passports are part of a financial transaction control grid that will absolutely end human liberty in the West … This is not about democracy versus fascism. This is about freedom versus slavery,” Austin Fitts said.

Pandemic Treaty

In September 2021, Haik Nikogosian published ‘A Guide to a pandemic treaty‘ representing “an independent academic attempt to systematise and shed light on some of the most frequently asked questions or issues otherwise important on and around a possible pandemic treaty. The Guide is no way exhaustive, to be updated as questions, discussions, processes and sources unfold.”

We have not read the entire guide and it certainly warrants in depth scrutiny by those who are so inclined.  With our untrained eyes, we have simply skimmed through a few points raised in the Guide and highlighted a few notable statements with the aim of raising awareness as to what Mr. Global is planning while our attention is focused on the deliberately manufactured Covid mayhem and chaos.

As you read these points, we ask you consider three things.  Firstly, WHO, as with all globally centralised institutions, is not democratically elected by nor accountable to us, the people. Secondly, we, the people, have not been consulted or asked if this is what we want. Thirdly, who’s best interest does a global pandemic treaty serve?

Is this a good time to negotiate such a treaty?

“The enormous challenge posed by Covid-19 created an unprecedented push for renewed global rules.” – A Guide to a pandemic treaty, Section 3, 29 September 2021

Treaties concerning international spread of diseases were adopted in the past. Why is it so different now?

“Fourth, while the “early” conventions were the dominant, if not the sole, source of international law on infectious diseases, a pandemic treaty would need to be embedded in—and largely influenced by—existing international law relevant to health, particularly human rights law, trade law and environmental law, all products of the post-WW2 international order.” – A Guide to a pandemic treaty, Section 11, 29 September 2021

How could the treaty address the One Health approach?

“Inter-agency cooperation will require tools commensurate to the magnitude of the challenge. Legal regimes linked to the work of FAO, OIE and UNEP, the WHO’s One Health partners, in areas of wild-life trade, biodiversity and land use are important in a pandemic context but nevertheless lack a health purpose. A pandemic treaty could create the necessary bridges to those treaties to which all or a majority of WHO’s Member States, are already parties to.” – A Guide to a pandemic treaty, Section 17, 29 September 2021

Would the treaty also address social and economic response?

“Meanwhile, such measures (aimed at social and job protection, minimal income security, fiscal stimulus etc.) may be important in pandemics, for example to strengthen adherence to public health measures and to minimise the impact of social and eco-nomic disruptions on national health outcomes.” – A Guide to a pandemic treaty, Section 19, 29 September 2021

And it’s going to cost the tax payer a lot of money.  An International Pandemic Financing Facility would raise “USD 5–10 billion to support preparedness work globally, and issue USD 50–100 billion in bonds for response activities.” 

Additionally, a UK-led  Pandemic Preparedness Partnership’s (PPP)  proposal for the G7 Summit contained a call to establish a new Pandemic Preparedness and Response (PPR) facility – “a Global Health Threats Fund … [that] would raise and manage USD 10 billion a year towards global public goods for PPR, with another USD  5 billion a year allocated directly towards strengthening the WHO and  other existing institutions,” A Guide to a pandemic treaty, Section 20, 29 September 2021 states.

Dan Astin-Gregory, the host of Pandemic Podcast, discussed “the legitimisation of mandates on the back of the gathering of world nations to discuss a new international pandemic preparedness treaty, in conjunction with the WHO, which threatens the possibility to, not only legitimise but, legalise many of the draconian and authoritarian restrictions and mandates that we’ve witnessed over the last 18 – 20 months in response to Covid-19.”

“’Experts’ believe it’s only a matter of time before the next pandemic emerges.  Given the demand it creates for pharmaceutical products and other associated high profit items, well, you’ve developed an incredible business model – why wouldn’t you want another pandemic to arise?” Astin-Gregory asked.

Under the 2005 international health regulations there are already more than sufficient powers to implement restriction and containment measures as well as the prospect of widespread vaccine mandates. However, Astin-Gregory said, “this pandemic treaty seeks to further expand the powers of the World Health Organisation and put further power in this central organisation.  What that does, bearing in mind their number one funder is Bill Gates who is intrinsically linked financially with every aspect of the pandemic response …, [is it enables] the opportunity for private interests to further infiltrate public health policy … It’s the kind of the corporate takeover, the technocratic authoritarian takeover, which [we’ve been] witnessing.”

“Every one of these central organisations [e.g., UN, WHO] … has revealed that these organisations are not fit for purpose, to represent the people and the planet …”  The answer to the global centralisation plans is to do the opposite, de-centralisation.

We were unable to find a copy of the podcast above on a platform other than YouTube.  In the event it is removed, Pandemic Podcast has a channel on Odysee HERE and it could be that it is uploaded to Odysee at some point.

A New World Order

Tedros said the aim of the upcoming session was “to start sketching out a new world order to handle future health crises.”

The New World Order (“NWO”) has two Wikipedia pages, one listed as “politics” and the other as “conspiracy” – both of these pages describe exactly the same thing; a centralised world government forming after a significant geopolitical power shift, the Spectator Australia wrote in an article about Australian politicians who recently used the term.

Wikipedia’s “politics” page states: “it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of world governance …”  Wikipedia describes ideology as: “a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons.”

Wikipedia’s “conspiracy” page states: “The NWO is a conspiracy theory which hypothesises a secretly emerging totalitarian world government … a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian one-world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states.” Wikipedia describes theory as: “a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon.”

Firstly, we would rather be making life changing decisions that affect the entire planet based on a theory than an ideology.

Secondly, there is nothing “secretive” about the emerging totalitarian world government or the “power elite with a globalist agenda.”  It is out in the open, Mr. Global is making little attempt to hide it.

Thirdly, we would argue that the term “conspiracy theory” is in itself a conspiracy. According to Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith, in a peer reviewed book ‘Conspiracy Theory in America (Discovering America)’, “the term ‘conspiracy theory’ was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission’s report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA,” the Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy wrote.

Whatever one’s belief in the origin of the term “conspiracy theory” there is no denying the use of it in the past two years is purely for propaganda, to promote or sustain an ideology, and shut down debate. What is truly remarkable is that Wikipedia has a lengthy page dedicated in an attempt to legitimise it – which we have not bothered reading.

If one is able to ignore the obvious bias and propaganda Wikipedia displays, it has some interesting insights into the NWO on their pages and it would be fascinating to know which page Wikipedia would record Tedros’ comment regarding “future health crises” – is it “politics” or “conspiracy.”

A September 2020 piece by Forbes describes a white paper, ‘Covid and the New World Order – Actionable insights from global technology thought leaders’.  Although the article is promoting a globalist agenda under the guise of democracy Forbes states: “Covid-19 has, from some perspectives, arguably precipitated the deterioration of the global governance system ….”  Is that too much to hope for?

Further resources:

• International Speakers Address Rallies in Europe Against the Global War on Freedom, in Medical Disguise, Doctors for Covid Ethics
• Oracle Films: Catherine Austin Fitts Speaks to Switzerland, Press Conference, 12 November 2021
• Pending International Treaty Empowering The WHO, Principia Scientific
• A Guide to a pandemic treaty, September 2021
• The Time Has Come for A Global Pandemic Treaty Says WHO’s Tedros, Great Game India