The World Health Organisation (WHO) will have the power to legally demand that Britain hands over 20 per cent of its vaccines and drugs in a pandemic under a treaty due to be ratified next month.
We spend our money on making soummat, then the WHO – of all the damned organisations – gets to nick 20% of it?
Fuck off.
I remember reading many years ago a novel in which one of the characters stated that to become a really successful criminal with a minute chance of prosecution, it was necessary to become a banker. But then that was before supranational bodies became so blatant…
How else are the WHO and rest of the UN elites going to get their vaccines?
I propose that the 20% is made up of the vaccines that would go to politicians and civil servants and that they should be at the back of the queue.
And when you get there, fuck off some more, and then some more.
Remembering one of Tim’s posts from yesterday, whoever signs this on behalf of the UK would be a most deserving case for an IPP sentence…
Can we hand over the ones that don’t work in the real world?
I listened to a podcast yesterday which mentioned that rates of current depression are pretty much unchanged. But we have anti-depressants that have passed clinical trials, other treatments too which have passed the tests for effectiveness. So why are the rates of depression staying stubbornly at around the same level.
Must be lots of drugs that fail clinical trials too – so send them those.
Ah no, the WHO wants the ones that work. Well they can pay to test them then. Imv of course,
“under a treaty due to be ratified next month.”
By actual rats?
I can guarantee you one thing. Signatories to the treaty or not, if it came to the crunch, the UK would be the only nation complying.
I think we can file this under ‘The WHO, how many divisions does it have?’
WTSHTF I don’t care what agreements States have signed, they won’t abide by them. I seem to remember President Macron was stopping lorries of PPE going through France at the beginning of Covid and nicking the contents. If there’s the equivalent of ebola doing the rounds and a government has enough magic juice to treat the entire population then condemning 1 in 5 people to be facing it alone is not a winning strategy in a democracy.
What BiS said.
If the WHO had sufficient influence to make the vaccines available at cost to governments I would be mildly supportive – as long as that cost was charged against our foreign aid budget.
But you can file that one under “shit that’s never ever ever going to happen”. Big Pharma would simply tell the WHO to pound sand which is why it focuses instead on virtue-signalling governments of which ours is up there with the worst irrespective of which party is notionally in power.
The WHO proved themselves to be utterly useless during Covid. They failed to research and disseminate the mechanisms of how Covid was transmitted, incubation, asymptomatic transmission etc. Definitive studies would have been very helpful to World Health. We went from “wash wash your hands” for the first few months to you must wear masks because it’s airborne not surface, which is odd as the adverts for flue prevention concentrated on surface transfer. They also asked for lockdowns and isolations as the main preventatives, ignoring the fact that the high rate of asymptomatic transmission meant that this was guaranteed to fail.
One thing we can be confident of. The WHO is far more interested in organising the world than health.
Worse than useless. They refused to talk to Taiwan, which had performed a lot of research into the virus and had much prior experience of previous chinese lab leaks.
I wouldn’t disagree at all with “Fuck off, seriously, fuck off” – the WHO are useless parasites. But I’m not sure we need to worry too much about this.
The updated document says countries must grant “at a minimum… in the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related health products”.
Hmm… I’m sure that at least 20% of us didn’t take the mRNA “vaccines”. OK, fine, and we’ll get some money back on half of that (10%) too.
I note “safe, efficacious and effective”? So that’ll include said mRNA “vaccines” [of course….] but should specifically exclude all that stuff that the cunts tried to deny might have any beneficial effect? Can’t see the problem myself…
There was a multinational 2019 study (admittedly modelling) that if airport passengers were compelled to wash their hands it would save many onward touch transmissions of communicable diseases.
This seems like an idea the WHO could pursue, and people passing through international airports usually have a bit of time on their hands (no pun intended) so the downside of this insistence should be low.
The WHO are not interested.
Scum.
Frigging scumbag organisation. It’s hard to think of a better one to leave.
Good analysis of WHO’s takeover of UK and RoW:
Serious Problems Remain: A Complete Guide to the New Draft Amendments to the WHO International Health Regulations
By Dr David Bell and Dr Thi Thuy Van Dinh
For two years, the 196 States Parties to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) – composed of 194 Member States of the World Health Organisation (WHO), and Liechtenstein and the Vatican – have been submitting and discussing proposed amendments to update this agreement…
Introduced in the 1960s, the IHR are…the provisions have always been Voluntary…
The current text of the amendments discussed below looks far from complete. There are internal contradictions, such as clauses both requiring informed consent and, strangely and alarmingly, recommending that this be overridden with forced drug administration…
To be voted on before the end of May. This completely abrogates the legal requirement within Article 55 of the IHR(2005), and repeated in this draft, for a four-month review period before any vote. This is not only irrational given the unfinished nature of the text, but…
Extracts
“Article 55 Amendments
The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.
This is, of course, completely incompatible with a vote on these proposed amendments in May 2024”
“Chapter III – The Review Committee
Article 50 Terms of reference and composition
3. The Members of the Review Committee shall be selected and appointed by the Director-General.
As above. A review committee must be independent to function properly, and therefore cannot be selected by the same people it is reviewing”
bis is wrong. Germany would be complying, and overcomplying to make up for the rest of the world not complying.