We are here today because we are all concerned by the World Health Organization's strong pressure to extend its powers, its structural and its financial capacities, with a permanent effect over the sovereignty of the countries and over the self determination of the people. I will initiate an independent evaluation at the earliest appropriate moment to review experience gained and lessons learned, and to make recommendations to improve national and global pandemic preparedness and response. 

But one thing is abundantly clear the world must never be the same. It is simply unthinkable that you would take an entity that had that had failed as badly as the who failed and award them any more power. We are talking about global power over the citizens of the world. This organization which has served us so poorly. This is from the Health and Democracy Conference 13 September 2023 in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. 

Now, Philip Krause is one of the lawyers involved in the Citizens Initiative challenging the European Parliament to reject the new international health regulations and the Who Pandemic Treaty. It was in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis that the who has initiated a reform process which will bring significant changes to all of us that will concern every human being and every of the 194 member states on this planet. 

In 2021, the World Health Organization and dozens of countries declared their intent to work together on a pandemic treaty affecting preparedness, response and recovery. Through a series of 307 amendments and a global pandemic treaty, the who seeks to gain authority over health decisions of UN member nations that could affect the rest of the world. In the case of something like another COVID pandemic, the who are introducing a pandemic treaty that will mean they'll be able to take your tax dollars without listening to your opinion or giving you the chance to vote on it. 

Is that democracy? As you know, this morning, the 193 member states of the United Nations approved the political declaration on Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. In May 2024, the 194 member states of the who will have their final vote on both of these international agreements. This process takes place behind closed doors. It is not reported, nor discussed in our newspapers, in our national parliaments, in universities, nor in society. 

The who claims in these two legal instruments an absolute and non questionable leadership in all health matters. As soon as who refers itself to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, they're talking about here health products, vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, diagnostics cystive products I'm not quite sure what that is. Cell and gene based therapies and their components, materials or parts, cell and gene based therapies, health products, including vaccines, medical devices. 

It really sounds really quite terrifying that the who would have total power over imposing these honors. They want to give themselves surveillance power, determine treatments, vaccine mandates, vaccine distribution, vaccine, intellectual property and profits. And they want to redistribute basically everything in the name of pandemics. How is the declaration? The Pandemic Declaration approved today. How is it binding? And if we look through other parts of the treaty, we can see here that this is what they've done. 

Quite often here, all they've done is simply cross out non binding. So instead of used to mean non binding advice, now it means binding advice. This is why this political integration, as Dr. Tetro said, is historic and very important for the ongoing negotiation in Geneva. Who will be binding to member state when they agree on the final text by May 24 who will have the right to not only declare recommendations made by several experts, but also to impose on the people of this planet or only to a certain region all kinds of restrictions, access restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance and experimental treatments and we just look through it. 

So, for example, here they've crossed out this part with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons. Why on earth would you have a who treaty where you take out a clause that says the implementation of these regulations shall be with the full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons? Why would you cross that out? We have never before in history, in 5000 years of recorded human history, we've never seen this level of authority given to an international global body. 

Those supporting this authority for the who, such as top advisor Dr. Abdullah Asiri, say it's necessary to protect the world's population, even if it means restricting some of their liberties. The world, however, requires different level of legal mandates, such as the Pandemic Treaty, to navigate through a particular pandemic should one occur. And it will prioritizing actions that may restrict individual liberties. Mandating and sharing of information, knowledge and resources and pandemic control efforts are all necessary. 

During a pandemic, it shall be granted the power of a massive self authorization whenever it claims to act under this purpose. Animal Health Ecosystem concerns about the level of CO2 and of course, human health can give rise to permanent measures and even to a public health emergency, to a pandemic called out and declared by the who. We're in danger of forgetting how important this is, and we need to recommit to pandemic preparedness, because we will not forget. 

We will learn the lessons, and we will move forward with an accord. We will move forward with pandemic preparedness. We will improve surveillance systems. We will take a one health approach and manage the ecosystem. We inhabit this planet. We inhabit this planet with the animals, with the plants, and we are putting this planet under pressure both in terms of climate and in terms of the ecosystem. There is no mechanism foreseen that will allow the people or the member states to challenge the assessment of who, whether it is the who's assessment about a public health emergency or their assessment with respect to certain measures, or when it comes to the imposing of a regime for what they call vaccination. 

As experimental as it might be, there will be simply no stop button for none of the member states and not, of course, not for us, the citizens and top backers of this United Nations move. Do say speed is of the essence, and I wish to stress from our perspective, the quicker we can come together, the sooner we will all be safe. Some in Congress opposed this move to further empower the who. 

They propose legislation that would deem it a treaty. The treaty would require Senate approval. I've read the treaty. I'm concerned about it. Article four pays lip service to sovereignty. You're pushing for it next year is probably when it may get adopted. Will it be sent to the Senate for ratification or are you planning on using the executive agreement, which I think is a terrible way to do things? It is a matter and a duty for all citizens now to impose the pressure towards their public representatives, political representatives, to make sure that the politicians, the political representatives, understand that they go on be a right on beyond of their entrusted vote. 

They can use if you don't want it, contact your politicians and they can stop this. .