Most recent up top. To follow this story from where we started posting, scroll to the bottom and move up.

June 21 (originally posted June 11) A Dutch article gives details on the  “global health emergency workforce” – an international corps of “health workers” who can be deployed to “combat pandemics." 

June 19 Canadian journalist Chris George writes about the ties between the world's largest corporate lobby group (the World Economic Forum) and the parent organization of the WHO (the United Nations.) 

June 18 James Rogulski reminds everyone: We LOST the first round of this fight. 

The amendments to the International Health Regulations were adopted on June 1, 2024 and the nations actually got far more than they originally requested. He urges that we keep Pandemic Preparedness on the forefront of our politicians' minds and that "THE SECOND ROUND OF THIS BATTLE HAS BEGUN!" 

He links to a number of recent interviews here: 

June 15 Dr. Meryl Nass updates readers on what stayed and what was removed in the version of the International Health Regulations agreed to on June 1. (She reminds os that the version of the IHR that is in force currently is the (2005) version and the ammendments can't go into place for 12 months. However, according to James Rogulski, we still need to lobby the government NOT to ratify these amendments. 

June 14 Rebel News journalist Tamara Ugolini reported that PHAC has a Pandemic Instrument Team which is "dedicated to negotiations that will strengthen the World Health Organization mandate and orchestrate unified response plans".   In her article, Tamara Ugolini links to the same formum (March 2023) that we referenced on this site (under BREAKING NEWS --> HELLO GOVERNMENT) 

June 12 Canada's Bill 293 The Pandemic Preparedness Bill has passed 3rd reading in the House of Commons and 1st reading in the Senate. This model letter to Members of the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee has been posted here for Canadians to consider modifying and sending. 

June 5 Canadian journalist Chris George did an EXCELLENT job of reflecting back on many issues around the WHA meeting Gevena. His list of unsanswered questions as to the actions of the Canadian contingent in Geneva can guide a lot of future letterwriting to come. See For example: 

The Trudeau government should report out on the Canadian delegation’s work at the WHA. Canadians deserve to know what Tam and the delegates from PHAC and Health Canada committed to with the WHO....

And my own question is: Will Canadians get an official account of Canada’s participation in the Geneva meetings and the commitments made to the ongoing work and future objectives of the WHO?

Here’s a parting thought: given that unelected delegates agreed to a set of regulations and the WHO member states did not sign a treaty, it suggests that whatever the WHO’s claim of the legitimacy of the new IHR document is, it still must be approved by member states. In Canada, parliamentarians have not debated the issues surrounding approving the WHO agenda. Our elected representatives have not ratified anything as of yet. There is an onus on all of us, if we are concerned about the WHO, to contact our MP, and contact the PM, Health Minister, as well as those Conservative MPs who will most likely be forming government later next year. 

In what appears to be the Trudeau government’s deliberate cone of silence, we must initiate the discussion. The WHO’s power play to establish its global authority must not go unchallenged.

June 3 (posted here on June 5) South African lawyer Shabnam Palesa Mohamed shared this: 

Nothing was accepted. The WHO is acting as if they all agreed, and will later try to try to change the amendments. “They are trying to deceive humanity”.

“Negotiations ended without agreement through pressure and threats of sanctions, trade restrictions and being maligned by international media.

“Countries which intervened immediately after the adoption disassociated themselves from the IHR 2005 amendments”. So there was more than one.

“Member states are being pressured and threatened. Nation states said they would not bow to pressure”. Some delegates left the WHA 77 early in protest.

See more here: (including the report for Japan that only 37 nations voted FOR the final IHR) 

June 2 (posted here June 4) The author of Geneva Health Files reported the ratification of the IHR ammendments just before the deadline as a major win. It appears Prithi Patnaik relies on reports from national delegates in her reports. So it is of interest to note what they see as postive results - "recognition of equity as a principle in this instrument for the first time in its history; defines a pandemic emergency; include obligations on the access to health products; establishes a new coordinated financing mechanism, among other elements including strengthening transparency and timeliness of information." As well, there is the extension of the mandate of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body for another year to allow them to have more time to work on the Pandemic Agreement, etc. (See

June 3  Dr. Meryl Nass posted the version of the IHR that was passed in which she bolded the new additions. For Canada the amendments would go into effect in 1 year, on June 1, 2025 unless our government reserves or rejects them within 10 months. Canada had long signed on to the original IHR. You can download the document from here: Note: Each State Party shall designate or establish, in accordance with its national law and context, one or two entities to serve as National IHR Authority and a National IHR Focal Point, and as well as the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations. The National IHR Authority shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the jurisdiction of the State Party.

Questions for the representatives who attended on our behalf would be: "What are your plans here in Canada to set up entities that serve as National IHR Authorities? Did we have such a place all along (called National IHR Focal Point)? Was it Health Canada?"

While Dr. Meryl Nass feels that many "odious" proposals did not get passed, James Rogulski believes that between what did pass and what was already in the agreement, the future still looks worrisome. His list was posted here on June 1. 

Dr. Robert Malone also is worried. He wrote: There was no actual vote to confirm and approve these amendments. According to the WHO, this was achieved by “consensus” among this unelected insider conclave rather than a vote; “Countries agreed by consensus to amend the International Health Regulations, which were last changed in 2005, such as by defining the term “pandemic emergency” and helping developing countries to gain better access to financing and medical products”, a WHO statement reported, continuing that “countries” agreed to complete negotiations on the pandemic accord with the year, “at the latest”.  Representatives from many WHO member nation-states were not in the room, and the ones that were there were encouraged to keep quiet. After the non-vote, there was giddy celebration of this achievement, clearly demonstrating the lack of somber maturity, commitment to both rules and careful diplomatic consensus, and absence of serious intent and purpose warranted by the topic. This was clearly an insider clique acting unilaterally to circumvent normal process, and mirrors a similar process used to confirm the re-appointment of Tedros to the Director-General position. See his full post here:

June 1 (added here June 2) large citizen rallies to protest the WHO's overreach into national health care policies the planned focus on corporate vaccine-driven global policy took place in Geneva;  in Japan 

June 1 (added here June 2) The Costa Rican delegate to the WHO (the country's vice-minister of health) broke consensus with the other nations: “That’s why Costa Rica disassociates from the consensus to extend the mandate because the prolongation and the uncertainty of a potential pandemic treaty will only serve to worsen the existing polarization which directly affects the well being of my population” 

June 1 - James Roguski testified to the National Citizens Inquiry on the current status in Geneva.  See: (Scroll to the 10 hour 63 minute mark to hear him, speaking just 5 hours after the vote on some of the ammendments to the International Health Reglations passed.) 

June 1, 2024 - shared by Dr. Meryl Nass:

The barely changed IHRs were just adopted. Don't worry -- the changes are practically meaningless

The diplomats in Geneva have been called back for another Plenary meeting to approve a new version of the IHR amendments dated TODAY june 1, 2024:

I am pleased to report that while I had only a short time to read this, the document looks basically like what I have predicted all week. It is a “vanilla” version from which all terrible items have been removed, with one exception and one partial exception. 

The one odious item is the agreement to “address” misinformation and disinformation. But as I explained earlier, this is already being implemented by our nations, so it is not new.

The section that demanded digital health documents aka digital IDs is gone; now both paper or digital health documents can be acceptable during a declared pandemic. The detailed demands to prove the “authenticity” of such documents has been watered down to the need for a doctor to sign the document.

I continue to think this is a huge win and this IHR document gives the globalists nothing that they really wanted. It also gives the developing nations essentially nothing. In other words, nearly two years of negotiations led to nothing.

Costa Rica does not want to keep negotiating. Slovakia just rejected the entire new IHR! Iran warns it may reject parts of the IHR.

May 31, 2024 - James Roguski looks ahead, IHR ammendments artlce 24, 27, 31, Annex 6 appear to have reached agreement - articles on "vaccine passports"; international travellers will need to abide by authority of the nation (compel travellers to underto isolation, quarantine, prophylactics/vaccine). Empowering national authorities to overrule the freedoms of travellers; authorizing jabs for enforcement. Also how guardians can sign paperwork to give informed consent on your behalf. If you push back, officials can "assign a GUARDIAN" for you to be forced to undergo xyz protocol.  There appears to be NO ONE single person at the WHA who is speaking up to point out the harms failed vaccine projects/biological weapons. The whole concept of these products having primacy over other means of prevention is ingrained into the mindset of the attendees. Also comments on the shortening of the time frame for ammendments back in May 2022. That was not properly voted on. Iran, Netherlands, Slovakia, New Zealand have declared the 2022 invalid. Other nations will only have 10 months... no evidence that the vote was properly carried out. No proper roll call being taken even now. Can't claim victory till the WHO is disbanded!

May 30, 2024 - James Roguski shares the agenda of the final days at the WHA 

New from May 28, 2024 - As reported here by James Roguski. 

At least 3 different draft resolutions are being written to try to get a version of the IHR/ Pandemic Treaty amendments moving forward. Group 1) France, Indonesia, Kenya, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America; Group 2) the 47 Member States of the African Region; Group 3) Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Norway, and Pakistan. The WHO published this update here: 

Also release by James Rogulski is this LIST OF WHA PARTICIPANTS which can be downloaded here. Here we can see who represents Canada. 

New from May 28, 2024 - As reported here by Dr. Meryl Nass 

Meryl Nass May 28, 2024 

Here she spoke about these issues with Dr. Drew: starting at 54:39  up to 1:12:11 following the link from

Where do the IHR amendments stand? The official meetings for today ended a few minutes ago and will reconvene at 9:30 am Geneva time (3:30 am EDT) 

A large number of countries that tend to follow the US agenda spoke together, one after the other, in favor of passing a package of amendments this week, indicating that much was already agreed.

 However, there was interesting pushback from 2 sides. The last speaker to express unhappiness about the amendments represented the international pharmaceutical manufacturers association, and they can exert a considerable influence on the US-led nations with strong pharmaceutical industries to vvote no. 

The other group that chose to speak and pushed back included: 


Russia (probably Smolenskyi) 

Iran—no expansion of power for international bodies 

Paraguay—the process has not been agreed. All nations must be able to implement (in other words be financially supported) the IHR requirements and as of now that is not happening 

Uganda—rushing is bad. We have outbreaks all the time that don’t amount to much and we don’t like the process for declaring a public health emergency I was not paying attention but hear Argentina pointed out the failure to adhere to Article 55 (2). 

The named nations will not go along with consensus so to get amendments passed this week there will need to be a vote. 

There must be many more nations that will also refuse to go along for the same/similar reasons. Will there be a roll call vote in which nations are accountable for their votes? As I have been saying, I anticipate some amendments will be passed, one way or another, this week, but on the whole they will be inconsequential and will not advance the One World Government plan. Stay tuned

1:46 PM · May 28, 2024·9,374 Views

New from a few days prior to the start of the World Health Assemby in Geneva: Due to the inability of nations to "come to consensus" on the terms of the WHO Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations, those two items cannot be voted on at the upcoming World Health Assembly. (This gives us more time to inform ourselves on all the issues involved, as it is certain the goals and aims in these documents will resurface at other times and in other places.)

NEW from May 25, 2024 - While certain interests are not able to move ahead on the Pandemic Treaty as planned at the World Health Assembly, on Friday, May 24, 2024, the World Intellectual Property Organization agreed to the “WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge.” At least 138 nations have already signed the WIPO Treaty. 

New from May 23, 2024 - Live streamig event by the US Sovereignty Coaltion - Included 2 Canadian voices: Oshawa MP Colin Carrie & PPC leader Maxime Bernier - link:  - Press Release: COLIN CARRIE's comments are now upoaded to our VIDEO WALL


The UK has decided NOT to sign on to the Pandemic Treaty & IHR ammendments. What they found unaccpetable was the WHO's power to demand 20% of a nation's vaccine stockpiles and PPE's be confiscated by the WHO to be reallocated elsewhere.

The Attorneys-General of 22 US states have written a letter to President Joe Biden opposing the signing of these treaties (LINK)

14 Australian Politicans sent this message to their Prime Minister:

“The IHR Amendments and the WHO Pandemic Treaty will transform the WHO from an advisory organisation to a supranational health authority dictating how governments must respond to emergencies which the WHO itself declares.

For the reasons above, that outcome is well outside the jurisdictional competence of the WHO and the WHA, and in any event, is unacceptable to many Australians. We call on the Government to reject the IHR Amendments and the WHO Pandemic Treaty at WHA77.” -->suggestion: Change this word to Canadian and send it around Canada!              See:

New from May 13, 2024 James Roguski refers to information shared by sources working under the Director General of the WHO that he is pressuring his negotiators to provide a "clean copy" of the Pandemic Treaty before the gathering of the World Health Assemby from May 27 onward. This means to delete any annotations that indicate which sections are not yet agreed upon. See .

New from May 11, 2024 Dr. Meryl Nass was interviewed by comedian and news commentator Jimmy Dore - this vieo provides the latest summary of concerns from an American perspective 

New from May 10, 2024 Ontario Conservative MP (and international law specialist) Dr. Leslyn Lewis has summarized key concerns around the WHO's scheduled vote on the Pandemic Treaty and ammendments to the International Health Regulations in this letter to Canadian Minister of Health Mark Holland.

New from May 10, 2024 The UK balks at treaty terms around needing to share 1/5 of their country's vaccine stock & treaty negotiations stop aiming to be ready for May 27 and decide to work on plan for ongoing treaty negotiating work. & The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body moves from publically visible sessions to secret closed-door sessions. 

New from May 6, 2024 CanadaEXitWHO started circuating this PRESS BRIEFING 

New from May 6, 2024 The World Council for Health has filed Cease and Desisit orders / Personal Notices of Liability on WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, along with three other high ranking WHO officials Dr Maria van Kerkhove, Dr Janet Diaz and Jeremy Farrar.

New from May 3, 2024 Dr. Meryl Nass shared this letter from 49 US Republican Senators to President Biden asking that the USA would withdraw support for both the WHO Pandemic Treaty and IHR ammendments and choose instead to focus on "comprehensive reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority" . A few days earlier she shared this newspaper article from British Member of Parliament explaining that the WHO Pandemic Treaty, which if implemented would empower the WHO to set a policy on stockpiles and access to medicines, vaccines and health equipment, including obliging Britain to hand over up to 20 per cent of pandemic-related health products.  (Someone needs to verify if it would be similar for Canada.)

New from April 30, 2024 James Roguski provides an excellent run-down of the current situation in this 48 minute interview (see: Nothing is agreed until Everything is a Greed). Here ae just a few highlights:

EVENT planned for June 1. International freedom movement to protest World Health Organization pandemic treaty, Thousands of people from Europe, the United States, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand say they plan to descend on the United Nations on June 1 to declare independence from global institutions such as the World Health Organization and World Economic Forum, while celebrating cultural and individual sovereignty. See:  and 

New from April 28, 2024 Former WHO medical officer and scientist David Bell posted a thorough update here: 

New from April 28, 2024 Dr. Meryl Nass wrote: "I think the inability of the Treaty and IHR committees to create a final draft of either document, despite scheduling extra negotiating sessions almost up until their scheduled votes, reveals the truth: this was not a “nation-led” effort to solve a dire problem, but rather a problem and solutions imposed from above, for which there is no consensus.

Furthermore, nations were supposed to get the newly amended IHR draft in January, and they didn’t. Health ministries then told parliamantarians they would get the final versions in April. That won’t happen.

Presumably a huge effort will be made to get nations to sign on despite having only about a week or so to see and evaluate the final drafts of both documents before the WHA meeting commences on May 27.

The DELAY the VOTE effort now makes a great deal of sense. How can nations properly assess these documents, filled with twists and turns, internal contradictions and deliberately vague language, in such a short time?  Delay the vote until next year. By then, hopefully the whole idea will have withered on the vine." 

NEW from April 27, 2024 James Roguski notes:

Did you notice this detail in the latest leaked document?

In the leaked proposed draft of the “resolution” to be presented to the 77th World Health Assembly, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body seems to want to mandate the Director-General “to implement with immediate effect” specific articles of the proposed “Pandemic Agreement.”

Why is it considered vital for the Director-General “to implement with immediate effect” the specified articles?

WHY? (See:

NEW from April 27, 2024 James Roguski reported on a group of 22 associations including the Centre for Health Science and Law (Canada) who have added their concerns with the Pandemic Treaty. "As May 2024 is approaching, there is tremendous pressure on Member States to conclude the negotiations at the earliest to facilitate the adoption of a Pandemic Instrument during the 77th Session of the World Health Assembly (WHA). This is, in turn, becoming a pressure on WHO Member States to either compromise, give up or postpone their equity demands especially on issues related to equitable access, technology transfer, a comprehensive multilateral access and benefit sharing system, and financing implementation of the instrument. At the same time, there are attempts to impose legally binding obligations on surveillance and information sharing with no provisions for financial and technological support to do so. 

We, the undersigned organisations, strongly call upon Member States to resist such inappropriate pressure. While timelines are important for concluding the negotiations of the Pandemic Instrument, there is no value in having an instrument without concrete deliverables or enforceable provisions on equity, the absence of which reinforces the highly inequitable status quo." 

NEW from April 24, 2024 Dr. Meryl Nass' analysis of the wording of the current drafts - a few of the worrisome details have been 'addressed' but not really. Different wording with similar meanings has been added in other sections to essentially lead to the same result as wording that has been removed. Please see

NEW from April 19, 2024 Dr. Meryl Nass and many other top tier medical/scientific/legal presenters participated in  Commissione Medico Scientifica in Rome, Italy. See both of Dr. Nass' talk to understand legel problems with the Pandemic Treaty and IHR especially with regards to biowarfare. 

NEW from April 7, 2024 (updated April 15) As the deadline approaches for the 194 member nations of the World Health Organization (WHO) to sign agreements granting broad new powers to this U.N. subsidiary, its advocates are turning up the heat on member countries to get on board, despite growing resistance to the deal.

On March 20, WHO Ambassador and former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed a campaign by a “100+ pantheon of global leaders” urging member nations to sign. “A high-powered intervention by 23 former national Presidents, 22 former Prime Ministers, a former UN General Secretary, and 3 Nobel Laureates is being made today to press for an urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord, under the Constitution of the World Health Organization, to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics,” stated a press release from the office of Gordon and Sarah Brown. The WHO ambassador also called for worldwide action to “expose fake news disinformation campaigns by conspiracy theorists trying to torpedo international agreement for the Pandemic Accord.”...On March 18, more than 80 ministers and church organizations added their voices to the “pantheon,” telling delegates from member countries that “reaching an agreement that ensures that everyone, everywhere can benefit from scientific advancement” was a moral obligation.