What’s With the WHO and Who Will Control the WHO Bomb

Share this Article

Two parallel items currently occupy the WHO agenda. Actually, there’s many more than two, such as the drive to teach 9-year-olds in the developing world how to masturbate and celebrate the rainbow flag. They are also preparing to celebrate World Health Day on April 7th complete with a film festival (seriously). There’s the Global Forum on Human Resources for Health coming up with sessions on “Circular migration as an effective and equitable mechanism for health workforce retention and motivation” and “Unpacking contemporary global trends in health worker protests and strikes in the COVID-19 era”.  Naturally “digital” and “gender” are also hot topics woven into any policies any chance they get. Despite the salad of managerialist techno jargon, it is still possible to find some reference to malaria, clean water and cholera here and there on the website. So the WHO has not entirely forsaken those lacking the resources to attend the film festival. But who is the WHO kidding and who are we kidding? They have to place cholera and malaria somewhere. These are big killer legacy menu items, even if monkeypox, covid and Ukraine are now sexier and head the bill. Down on the ground it’s all a big grift when you see the row of brand-new white land cruisers parked outside the better hotels in the capital cities of the developing world. If a mafia wants to stay low profile and not rub our noses in it they could at least not advertise their acronyms on the side of the vehicle. But no one’s there to notice bar for the locals, the other NGO’s and those idealist white western medical students come to get the selfie holding a black baby.

All this and more pales in comparison to

  1. the international pandemic treaty, with rolling meetings of the various inter-governmental negotiating groups. This wishes to put in place an instrument that will universalise pandemic responses
  2. rolling revisions to the 2005 International Health Regulations.

Pandemic treaty

Starting with the former, as per the “Zero draft of the WHO CA+ for the consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at its fourth meeting” 1st February 2023, its aim as stated is to ensure future pandemic responses are universalised such that the same will be done everywhere to everyone. All will be under the centralised control of the WHO executive, their proximal donors and handlers and whatever lay deeper in the shadows behind.

Following the contents, it opens with “reaffirming” sovereignty of states parties and “recognizing” the “fundamental place of human rights”. But… and this is a very big but…

a) it explicitly nests rights in terms of international law to which the member states are obliged to assent (so what place sovereignty?) and

b) it elaborates the “highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights” where WHO itself is to be the expert and guiding authority in what constitutes the health that is a right. In other words, the rights about which they are interested are health on their terms.  

Many additional points could simply be reduced to the newspeak of “equity” and “inclusion” and notional protection of the “vulnerable”, though these three words are not to be taken at face value without careful parsing of context and the meaning of the words to the WHO itself. The “we are all in this together” rhetoric is fair enough though becomes repetitive very quickly. Point number 27 introduces us to “One Health” (more on that later)

By point number 37 we have several assurances to the private members of the public private partnership that their profits and property will be protected (despite the obligation to share). Regardless of how socialist the WHO appears to be on the surface, it’s a world where health crisis capitalism is big business.

None of these bullet point acknowledgements and re-affirmations say anything substantial. These are not the articles upon which policy will form and your leaders will say ‘the WHO made me do it.’

There is of course a Utopian vision ‘The World Together Equitably,’ an impossible goal to achieve but by totalitarianism and even then impossible. There’s further appeal to ‘equity, human rights and solidarity’ or as the voice of the guillotine might say ‘Libertéégalité (equity)fraternité (solidarity)‘… minus of course the liberté. It’s funny how these days they always seem to miss out the liberté

Onto the articles proper:

Article 1 is an unfinished product on definitions.

Article 2 is a statement of intent to harmonise with other WHO instruments, its constitution and the overarching charter of the UN.

Article 3 is basically a statement of alliterations. Proactive. Prepare. Pandemic. Address systemic gaps (equity again).

Article 4 on guiding principles does open with

Respect for human rights – The implementation of the WHO CA+ shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons, and each Party shall protect and promote such freedoms.

What are these freedoms and how might they be protected the WHO does not say (see comment on article 14 vide infra). Article 4 has now eaten the distasteful vegetables of a word like “freedom” before wasting no time in getting down to the socialist woke speak of equity (again!), solidarity, inclusiveness, gender equality, diversity, the rights of the vulnerable, science the new God and centralized governance under WHO executive direction.

Article 6 is about logistics. Article 7 is about tech. Both are couched in equity. Articles 8 and 9 are about the regulatory strengthening and research upscaling required so people can donate to Pfizer et al (without actually mentioning Pfizer et al).

Article 10 is about information sharing (“equitable” of course) and article 11 contains some reasonable detail around strengthening preparedness for pandemics. I do wonder what is implied by surveillance under the “One Health Approach” (see article 18 to follow) below.

Article 12 is about human resources and article 13 about, inter alia, simulation exercises and the issue of preparedness yet again. They say:

The Parties will convene multi-country or regional tabletop exercises every two years…

For those left a tad suspicious of the time between simulation event 201 (Oct 2019), the SARS COV-2 outbreak (Jan 2020 at the latest), and the responses along event 201 lines as opposed to pre-existing pandemic plans which were dumped (Feb-March 2020), this article is one to watch out for. Who will preside over these biannual exercises? Who will be their donors? What data will be necessary in order to run meaningful simulations and how might this data be obtained?  Who will profit if the simulation becomes real?

I want to dwell for a moment on article 14, what it actually says about the protection of human rights and what is omitted. Quoted in full…

Article 14. Protection of human rights
1. The Parties shall, in accordance with their national laws, incorporate non-discriminatory measures to protect human rights as part of their pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, with a particular emphasis on the rights of persons in vulnerable situations.
2. Towards this end, each Party shall:
(a) incorporate into its laws and policies human rights protections during public health emergencies, including, but not limited to, requirements that any limitations on human rights are aligned with international law, including by ensuring that: (i) any restrictions are nondiscriminatory, necessary to achieve the public health goal and the least restrictive necessary to protect the health of people; (ii) all protections of rights, including but not limited to, provision of health services and social protection programmes, are non-discriminatory and take into account the needs of people at high risk and persons in vulnerable situations; and (iii) people living under any restrictions on the freedom of movement, such as quarantines and isolations, have sufficient access to medication, health services and other necessities and rights; and
(b) endeavour to develop an independent and inclusive advisory committee to advise the government on human rights protections during public health emergencies, including on the development and implementation of its legal and policy framework, and any other measures that may be needed to protect human rights.

Sounds good enough, doesn’t it?

But note again the recognition of national sovereignty (national laws) are later obliged to be domesticated within international law as set by the WHO itself.

Also note the word freedom does not return. Human rights are mentioned though not defined, instead placed in the context of their abrogation, i.e. what is ‘least restrictive’ and ‘necessary.’ But liberty is not mentioned at all, nor is privacy or autonomy or self-determination or any other number of words I would have included as essential. Including them would risk opening doors to reflect on their value. In not mentioning them we fail to qualify the reference point from which there is further restriction of rights. As if some words ought to be memory holed altogether, better not mention them. And if the WHO has its way, future generations but not even to be able properly conceptualise what they are missing. Words such as ‘protection’ and ‘non-discriminatory’ used above sound nice. Likewise, elsewhere in the same and other WHO documents words such as ‘sustainable,’ ‘inclusion’ and ‘equitable’ sound nice. But what do they mean? The meaning lies in the use of the word, not what you assume is its meaning or in the dictionary definition.

Allow me an example. I decide you are insane. Whether or not you are, ipso facto, insane is not for you to say. It’s for me to tell you. Already there is a restriction placed upon you. Despite your adulthood you do not have the right to avoid the label placed upon you. Neither do you get to choose insanity and peacefully go on your way. And what I decide is that you require a very powerful tranquiliser. You will feel zombified. Maybe it might make you fat, constipated, sexually dysfunctional etc. I’ll first offer you tablets. If you refuse this non-invasive “least restrictive” alternative you receive an injection. Some injections remain in the system for a whole season. If an establishment authority determines you require permanent pharmacological management, they only need to grab and jab you four times per year to succeed in their goal. Perhaps the decision is made for involuntary hospitalization, this too using language of minimally restrictive necessity. Are you restricted to a locked room, a small ward without access to a courtyard or amenities, an open ward with or without leave or leave with x people at y time for z length of time? Given you are deemed a ‘danger to self and others,’ your human rights can be fulfilled safely with plastic cutlery you are not permitted to keep, along with a blanket, mattress, and cardboard collection vessel in which to urinate. All these are rungs on the least restrictive ladder of context dependent human rights. Once again none are of your choosing and all are framed as necessary. Similarly, we might imagine a system so well-funded and resourced no one misses out. All genders, races and class strata have their opportunity be assessed as insane and locked up without any difference in treatment on identity political lines. There’s your equity and inclusion. If the system is so well funded and managed and so impervious to challenges that it can go on forever and cope with demographic shifts, economic instability and the like without too much carbon output then it is sustainable also. The cosy connotation you place on these words is not borne out in their use upon you. Whether its eradication of insanity or eradication of a virus, whether it’s getting one drug into you or keeping another drug out, health will be accomplished despite you.   

Any large criminal prison can also be made fulfil all criteria of equity, inclusion, diversity, and sustainability. All tyrants might coherently argue deprivations of liberty to be least restrictive and necessary to get the job done. The most inclusive and equitable prison in the world is the world itself, with Tedros and his handlers its warden. None of this address’s upstream questions of human rights and biopolitics. The question is this: what will be judged a crime (when a pandemic is a pandemic) and what is the justness of the sentence (lockdown or no lockdowns, jabs or no jabs). When everywhere in the world is the McDonalds of lockdowns, what if you want to go somewhere else? 

Article 17 reads:

Article 17. Strengthening pandemic and public health literacy
1. The Parties commit to increase science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects, and tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through promotion of international cooperation. In that regard, each Party is encouraged to:
(a) promote and facilitate, at all appropriate levels, in accordance with national laws and regulations, development and implementation of educational and public awareness programmes on pandemics and their effects, by informing the public, communicating risk and managing infodemics through effective channels, including social media;
(b) conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation, which contribute to design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust; and (c) promote communications on scientific, engineering and technological advances that are relevant to the development and implementation of international rules and guidelines for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, based on science and evidence.
2. The Parties will contribute to research and inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures, confidence and uptake of vaccines, use of appropriate therapeutics and trust in science and government institutions.
3. The Parties shall promote science and evidence-informed effective and timely risk assessment, including the uncertainty of data and evidence, when communicating such risk to the public.

In other words, the pandemic response and pre pandemic preparedness can include globally operating surveillance programmes of potential dissident messages, censorship and de-platforming, partnering with social and other media and laundering some of these Orwellian moves through ‘research’ (point 2). The prison becomes an experiment in information warfare as they calibrate how to make their ears keener and strengthen the grip they have on your throat. How hard they will ‘tackle’ the dissident remains to be seen, though we did have a preview these past few years. You’ve seen what they are capable of. Some they will break by divesting them of their ability earn a living. For others it can be by lawfare.  As I write this, Assange is still in prison. He was tackled.   

Article 18 elaborates on One Health

It’s a nonsense of alliteration and buzz word cramming. But therein I found the gigantic red flags I was searching for:

3. The Parties will identify and integrate into relevant pandemic prevention and preparedness plans interventions that address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance.


5. The Parties commit to strengthen synergies with other existing relevant instruments that address the drivers of pandemics, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and increased risks at the human-animal-environment interface due to human activities.

Remember the game is about responding to and preventing pandemics by global legislative means to which all 194+ states assent. It is in the nature of complex ecologies that small events in one node can effect small or large changes elsewhere. All human behaviours can be argued to impact upon physical Earth (i.e. climate change) along with the biosphere and interspecies interactions. From both we can concoct a million stories of increased risk to global health.  Everything you eat. Every consumer item you purchase. Every good and service you produce. Every movement you make spreads antigens and consumes carbon. Every step you take leaves its footprint on mother Earth. If health is determined by everything and WHO wants to control all determents of health, we logically pass very quickly from exoteric holism or esoteric gaia worship to a full bore justification of totalitarianism. Remember, Tedros, his handlers and donors didn’t ask your opinion.  And with the central executive of WHO and the forces behind it replacing the mind of Gaia, how might this new technocratic Goddess and her faithless priests monitor the health of the body that is her Earth? The answer is by surveillance of course. Big data, world-wide genomic monitoring, travel and immigration control of biological bags of genes, antigens and antibodies. There are no limits. And the control arm will be social engineering and social credit systems.

Amendments to International Health Regulations

So much for the pandemic treaty. Now to the real horror show of the February meeting, the Article-by-Article compilation of proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022) 6 February 2023:

This latest instalment must be read considering the original submission of proposals made late 2022, though this caveat does not detract from the points I shall make, these restricted to just the first few of its 30+ pages. The strikethrough indicates something present in the current edition of the IHR which is proposed to be edited out. Bold underlined text is brand new content.

Article 1

You will note at the start of the third paragraph of the first page the following:

“standing recommendation” means non-binding advice

All advice is by definition non-binding or it would not be advice, it would be an order or command. Yet until now the WHO was quite content with tautology. Now the language of refusal is removed altogether. Why remove ‘non-binding’ now unless they wanted to recast ‘advice’ as something akin to an offer one cannot refuse.

Article 2

The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases including through health systems readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk all risks with a potential to impact public health, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, livelihoods, human rights, and equitable access to health products and health care technologies and know how.

Here we are moving into the Bush Cheney doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and nets cast wide to include any potential terrorist, only now recast onto the subject of health. It’s not about the risk as it is. It’s about what might become the case, bounded only by the imagination and the quanta of degrees of separation that the WHO dictates. They will always be at the ready and will act not simply against extant public health risks (as outlined above). They will also seek to control all variables remotely impacting hypothetical future public health events inclusive of geopolitical behaviour, energy, goods, information flow, possible determinants of climate change, travel, capital resources etc.

Article 3 Principles

1. The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.

Principles of human rights on classical liberal, right individualist or left libertarian lines are all left on the cutting room floor, the crime done in broad daylight here and by the excesses of the last three years. We have now gone as far left into dissolved collectivism as it is possible to venture. Even if subsequent revisions of the IHR walk back some of these intended changes, the proposed changes of February 2023 speak to there being seriously dangerous ideologues in the WHO camp who pushed things this far. We would be naïve to expect them to stop. What starts as the most illiberal collectivist language of the French revolution; equity/egalité, inclusivity/fraternité (minus liberté again!) ends with a call for each cog in the global machine to responsibly provide according to their strengths with others according to their developmental capacities (making for a coherent equity, the rich share with the poor, the mask makers with the vaccine makers, the vaccine makers in turn with the mask makers). This is a motif rephrased and stated again and again throughout the document, though best said in 1875 by none other than Karl Marx:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Now I’m not knocking Marx, nor the general moral principal of charity towards the unfortunate. I’m not even knocking the value of any messaging that the developed world has certain moral responsibilities. But global allocation of resources and money somewhere up the chain undercuts both individual (by that I mean regular people) ownership over their own capital and their own chosen capacity to exercise charity on their terms. It also undercuts the decision of sovereign nations to decide where their billions will go (and we know the billions will not come from those who decide, but by the common people). As is the case with the military industrial complex and the endless wars overseas, there’s opportunity for countless grifts and cash skimming between your taxes and whomever ends up with the vaccine in their arm, the mask on their face or their genes (or that of their livestock) being sampled. Somewhere between 2024 when the revisions are complete and circa 2029 every signed-on state actor is meant to have developed the infrastructure, be fully integrated into the WHO plan and ready to roll with what it dictates. Within this window I expect to see endless emails coming my way from various dissident news groups such as has occurred during covid. The content of the messages will be about quarantine centres or biotech firm owned or majority share held by a brother or wife or best friend of some CEO or politician in the bigger power players of a given regional node. None of this theft is Marxist, though it is oligarchic mafia. None of this is democratic either, instead administered top down from the WHO central executive and its handlers to supranational regional ‘jurisdictions’ (implying supranational loci of legal power) to the nations and citizens themselves. All they are left with are psychological defences, pathetic fantasies of sovereignty and democracy.  

Throughout the latter part of article 4 it is explicitly stated that nations (i.e. state parties) will be held accountable to meet their obligations. The WHO will assist struggling state actors meet these obligations to be sure, for such is the stuff of solidarity. But it will not brook dissent and hints are made throughout the document of the consequences. The WHO will be interdigitated with systems that pull the levers of finance and trade. I imagine certain problematic state actors in the BRIC+ group may be pressured into noncompliance to give licence to punish them further (say by compulsion to contribute in a uniform currency and exchange of biodata). So many moves might be taken, limited only by your imagination and faith in what you think they will not do. See article 6 ‘Notification’, new section 3 for example.

Speaking of, article 6 “Notification” section 2 also makes clear that the member states will survey the genome when any “event” occurs, sending the data up the chain. Gen* as genetics, genomics or similar from the word root is used at least 6 times in the article making clear that the PCR game is far from over and the world of big date genomics has just begun. From farm animals to the jungle to the smaller jungle up your nose, it’s the age of the gene.           

Article 12 restates the centralisation of authority to make decisions under the criteria of Annex 2 (take a look at the annexure. With just a little imagination 11/17 criteria are easily reached to call a global emergency). But they don’t formally call ‘a public health emergency of international concern’ to ramp up surveillance. There are other steps on the control ladder just as concerning.

Triggering a wave of fear, irresistible international peer pressure and legal instruments to lock down 194+ member states would easily be as impactful to civic and economic life as a third world war. WHO controlled health policy towards ends notionally about climate and optimizing health but really about control of energy, information and resources/capital are similarly terrifying. WHO came into being as a tool of social and geopolitical engineering, first headed by Brock Chisholm, a deeply illiberal psychiatrist with dreams of a global technocracy. It was to be a powerful adjunct to the UN’s potentiality as global one world government. The selling point was always the necessity to prevent bad nationalist or ethno-state actors such as those emerging circa mid-century in Europe by dissolution into supranational agency. Seldom was it ever considered a supranational agency could become as evil as a rogue state or become captured by the one with greater power and cunning. The ideology of the perfection and self-correction of the notionally democratic under US moral oversight was axiomatic. Yet the WHO has always had the potential to be up-tooled and weaponised. A miracle it’s taken so long, perhaps heretofore limited only by the obstructions given by the last vestiges of nationalism, distance and the absence until now of big tech and big data (including genomic data). Now the world feels smaller, one world government and government likewise does not feel so strange and alien.   

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like. Guilty as charged. But if these past three years has taught us anything it is that almost anything can happen over the next thirty. The world’s mono-polarity is changing. Many hands are reaching for old chess pieces or inventing new ones from cloth. A provoked yet weakened Russia is of necessity cosying up to China, the latter of whom can tug on a thousand strings of influence. The United States is going around blowing up pipelines and asserting its ownership over legacy players and anyone else who gets out of line. The euro-communist project faces internal strife and external discipline (back to pipelines again) yet still is a fashion house producing ideas of what western civilization was, is and could be. Meanwhile there’s non state power players like the (one) Peoples Republic of Gates, the Blair Institute, The Clinton Foundation and the WEF. Their tentacles hide in plain sight, gloating about capturing politicians and perfecting the “public private partnership”.

Going granular for a moment, Tedros himself was a talent discovered and groomed by the Clinton and Gates foundation, prior to which he was just another dime a dozen far left African party player with a chequered local reputation. Insomuch as Ethiopia carried in the west the optics of the innocent victim of famine other African war torn states lacked, the king makers made an excellent choice. The fact that Tedros the Marxist is also a pro-lockdown sinophile fails to clarify who really pulls the strings, though we do know who controls the currency of payment. Similarly we hardly have clarity over who might pull the strings of Dr Michael Ryan, the ex orthopaedic hero surgeon heading the pandemic emergency response plan. Perhaps Ryan is a victim of his own personality, this in turn to be exploited at a high order of agenda. Shoot the virus first and ask the questions later is the language of his rhetoric, not wasting time discussing ethical theory. Dissidents celebrated the dissolution of the UK SAGE and its nudge unit too prematurely and without any awareness of the way nudge units manage appearances. Its member Susan Michie now chairs the behavioural sciences (i.e. propaganda and social engineering) arm of the WHO. Michie is quite literally a card carrying British communist party member. No surprise in what direction her nudges will shove you. Coming in under Tedros himself is Stewart Simonson. This American node linking the WHO to the UN is the same sometimes Wall Street sometimes deep state lawyer linking the WHO to the US specifically. Last for now is Sir Jeremy Farrar. Former head of the Wellcome trust, he will be the incoming WHO chief scientist. His service to the trust and its private public partnership was celebrated by Wellcome’s chair of global partnerships Julia Gillard, the former Australian Prime Minister who received her own promotion up the real chain of command. See how these wheels operate. As the comedian George Carlin said: ‘it’s a big club and you ain’t in it.’  

From granular back to the geopolitical, schisms in the Islamic world show first signs of healing and all great powers want to marry an Arabian or Persian princess (or both). As I write this, rifts within the Jewish factions deepen, splintering their focus of influence. Australia and the global south, as usual, will watch on awaiting orders or ultimatums.    

So who will get their hands on the WHO bomb first? Who will (or does) control the WHO now? Will it be a China or China alliance? Or will it be the global empire of the United States as its major donor and UN powerbroker? Or will it be non-state actors or consortiums looking to create de facto superpowers via back end largely borderless control? The only safe strategy for the common man and woman is lobby for complete public health disarmament from the WHO to the CDC all the way down to regional public health offices in previously sovereign states such as Australia. There was no institutional machinery in the time of Snow or Jenner. We do not need Public Health in order for the public to be healthy. The real pandemic is the unchallenged assumed goodness and necessity of the WHO. These are the upstream ideas covid dissident groups need consider.   

This article was originally published here on Robert’s Substack, Robert Against The Machine.

Share this article

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Leave a Reply


  • Robert Brennan

    Robert Brennan lectured in anatomy and several other biomedical sciences before medical school and a career as a public sector medical officer in psychiatry. Recognising from the start that government pandemic health policy was motivated more by power, profit and political peer pressure than science, ethics or reality he became an anti lockdown activist from April 2020, the first Queensland medical practitioner to publicly speak out and the second in Australia to be suspended by the regulator for thought/speech crime. Robert has spoken widely at rallies and in the independent media space. Today you can find him on TNT radio live and substack and with the organisation Australian Medical Network or AMN (previously known as Covid Medical Network or CMN, Australia's first, latest, hardest hit and hardest hitting dissident doctor network in the covid era).

    View all posts
Follow Us

Join our Newsletter