This article is an expanded version of PANDA’s Substack article that drew attention to a WHO public participation process designed to gather opinions about proposed responses by international bodies to future pandemics. It provides more detail about those who submitted comments, their affiliations and opinions.

Inviting comments on WHO’s proposed pandemic instrument

In 2022 we witnessed how the global pandemic preparedness complex doubled down on efforts to lobby the governments of sovereign nations to relinquish their decision-making powers over future so-called pandemics and other declared health emergencies to the World Health Organization (WHO).

In late September 2022, WHO’s intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) held a meeting to discuss its New International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response. Earlier that month they had announced a second round of public hearings. Interested parties had been invited to submit a video statement in response to the following question:

Based on your experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, what do you believe should be addressed at the international level to better protect against future pandemics?”

PANDA submitted a video in which it clarified its stance on the future of pandemic preparedness by highlighting failings and concerns relating to the Covid-19 event. Points made included that:

  • The clear lack of impact on reducing Covid-19 harm through the public health response only compounds the wrongfulness of these actions.
  • The resulting increase in inequality and mass poverty (predicted in WHO’s 2019 pandemic guidelines) undermines public health. 
  • Pandemic preparedness should be proportionate and guided by populations, not corporations. 
  • WHO needs to return to promoting health rather than enabling corporate profit. 

Two distinct groups 

The results of the hearing were published quietly on the WHO website a few weeks later. Not only was the public hearing phase not promoted, but the results were even harder to find. Nonetheless, PANDA was curious to discover what types of responses WHO had received. Of the 420 short videos, PANDA volunteers reviewed the approximately 370 English submissions. Of these, about 60% spoke out against WHO and the pandemic instrument, while 40% supported them. 

There was a clear distinction between these two groups. The great majority (about 97%) of those supporting WHO identified as members of organisations, most of which were clearly associated with or influenced by the UN or WHO. On the other hand, about 82% of those rejecting the pandemic instrument identified as independent individuals. 

  1. Individuals rejecting WHO’s proposal:

Of those who voiced concerns about WHO and recorded their affiliations, only about 20 were linked to associations or networks focusing on sovereignty or health freedom. In addition, some listed businesses that had little to do with health, and a few mentioned that they were retired medical practitioners, suggesting that they were at liberty to voice their concerns without fear of professional sanction. 

This group represented diverse languages and cultures and individuals came from at least 20 countries, on all populated continents. While most commented independently of one another, a level of coordination was observed amongst some of the nearly 60 Polish citizens who responded. Some read part or the whole of a prepared script that covered a wide range of concerns regarding the proposed treaty. Some of these respondents belonged to associations or foundations committed to freedom and independence, such as the Association of Teachers for Freedom, and the Association of Independent Doctors and Scientists. 

Olaf Swolkień, Małopolski Bunt (Malopolska Rebellion Association)
  1. Individuals supporting WHO’s proposal:

Those who responded positively to proposals for a pandemic instrument represented about 140 unique organisations. Most of these were non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or international NGOs (INGOs) involved in fields such as medicine and public health, communicable and non-communicable diseases, One Health, human rights, development, environment and conservation, finance, academic institutions, and the pharmaceutical, biotech and vaccine industries. 

It is not surprising that representatives of these organisations expressed their support for WHO and its efforts to control ever more tightly the global response to future pandemics. Those who depend on the UN ecosystem for employment, project funding, networking, and associated opportunities have for decades been moulded by its agencies and agendas. They have learnt to design their project proposals and express their intentions in the language and within the policy frameworks of these centralising agencies in order to continue caring for the health and wellbeing of people and the planet. For the most part, those ‘on the ground’ who are deeply committed to their vocations as health workers, social workers, environmentalists, or researchers, are unaware that WHO is in the process of constructing a regulatory cage that threatens to constrain us all.

A useful crisis

Covid-19 was a useful crisis. Health is a common concern of all people, so who better than WHO to legitimately play the centralised command-and-control role in responding to this ‘global pandemic’? Ironically, the focus of the entire global health apparatus became fixated on an invisible foe. WHO rallied and incentivised the public health troops, issuing orders and demanding compliance in the march towards universal ‘vaccination’. Those who submitted videos reflected the scope of their diverse fields, from communicable and non-communicable disease management, to diagnostics, development of pharmaceuticals, policy development, health education, and technology transfer.

Terrifying propaganda ‘went viral’, creating a sense of urgency and demands that ‘something must be done NOW!’ The ‘novel coronavirus’ required a novel response. Evidence-based pandemic guidelines that had been carefully developed based on the experience of previous pandemics and published the previous year (2019) were abandoned. Panic resulted in a lack of caution that is reflected in the demand by one respondent to “fast-track R&D, and overcome ethics applications, licensing, and agreements.”

Declaring Covid-19 a ‘global’ pandemic strengthened WHO’s position, allowing it to declare the emergency, define the ‘truth’ of the situation, determine protocols and procedures, and involve its massive network of subsidiaries in implementing the plan. Even now, people continue to call for global leadership to tackle emergencies, as stated by those calling for “all states to follow WHO”, to “standardise health care”, for “lots more regulation”, and for countries “to be incentivised to comply”, even if this means being threatened with consequences by the IMF. 

Lovers of liberty

In contrast to WHO’s supporters, who mainly represented organisations, the great majority of people rejecting the pandemic instrument were independent individuals, or members of organisations or networks committed to freedom, justice, and the rule of law, most having been established in response to the Covid-19 event. It is likely that many of these people were able to critique the Covid narrative and the role of WHO because they were not professionally linked to, or financially dependent on, the global health sector. 

A dominant theme in these videos was the demand for health sovereignty. Many rejected the interference of WHO in public health matters and pandemic responses of countries. It was felt that individual countries could look after themselves and should not be dictated to by an unelected body. Also, due to the unique nature of different regions and cultures, a ‘one size fits all’ response to pandemics was deemed inappropriate, and respondents called for decisions to be made at local and national levels. Indeed, this is in line with orthodox public health understanding, which had previously been espoused by WHO. As one person asserted: “We don’t recognise your authority or expertise. Stop this! It is not welcome here. We know what is best for us.”

WHO’s mismanagement of Covid-19

Unlike those who supported WHO’s role in managing Covid-19, a number of independent respondents felt that WHO had badly mismanaged the situation and therefore had no right to dictate to countries how they should respond to future pandemics. People commented that Covid-19 had been a public health disaster. WHO’s unethical mandates – the lockdowns, masking, PCR tests, and mRNA injections – had ruined people’s lives. The loss of rights, liberty, and livelihoods, and the “pandemic of social isolation” caused “grievous bodily, mental, emotional and psychological harm” and “worsened inequality”. People also mentioned the injuries and deaths related to the mRNA injections, with one calling it “a global massacre”. 

Tragically, WHO failed in its mandate to “serve the vulnerable, so everyone, everywhere can attain the highest level of health.” As Nick Hudson, Chairman of PANDA, pointed out in PANDA’s submission:

In terms of disease burden, endemic infectious diseases (malaria, TB & HIV/AIDS) cause vastly more and younger deaths, so equity demands more resourcing for them. The Covid policy response, not used in previous pandemics, provoked an unprecedented rise in inequality particularly impacting low and middle-income countries (LMICs). … Inequality and worsening health in LMIC populations demonstrates the dangers of prescriptive centralised policies and of failing to recognise vast heterogeneity of disease burden and community behaviour. 

Nick Hudson, PANDA

In addition to the obvious public health elements of the Covid-19 debacle, one respondent drew attention to the following aspects:

There has been corruption, propaganda, human rights abuses, fearmongering based on narratives not data – TV and pseudo journalists – violations of human rights, police brutality against citizens, abuse of state powers, suicides due to loss of everything you worked for being wiped out by hysterical lockdowns, and a growing mistrust in medics. Let people decide on the health of their lives and their bodies.

Krzysztof Brunon

Losing trust in globalist agencies

“Lies, lies, and more lies!” This is how one person described his experience of Covid-19. Losing trust in the institutions they had once respected caused many people to start doing their own research to find out what was really going on. Many respondents concluded that WHO was part of a globalist cabal, influenced politically and financially by the World Economic Forum (WEF), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). One respondent worried that WHO’s pandemic instrument could be used by these parties as “a tool to control and enslave citizens”.

There were concerns that WHO had become “too strong, plagued with conflicts of interest, collusion, unscientific policies, and totalitarianism.” Because WHO, Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers had become compromised, some felt that they should not be allowed to be part of the international pandemic response. Some respondents, including this MSc student studying One Health, called for a greatly reduced (mainly advisory) role for WHO in future pandemics:

WHO should only act as an advisory body and give advice based on scientific debate. During pandemics WHO should … provide reassurance rather than cause fear. Scientific debate should be safeguarded and no censorship should be allowed. … Never again should WHO override the rights of individuals to self-determinations. Lockdowns, masks, and coerced and mandated vaccines fly in the face of established science. If scientific debate had been allowed, outcomes would have been much better. 


Another respondent put it succinctly: “WHO should do nothing next time.”

A number of respondents complained that WHO had acted undemocratically and that their approach to managing Covid-19 had violated their own fundamental principles as well as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Syracusa Principles. One respondent worried that the amendments to international regulations that would be legally binding were being made in secret, and another called for “a major national enquiry into all aspects of the pandemic response.”

What to do about WHO

All the failures mentioned above have not only resulted in WHO losing credibility but have also generated anger, resulting in some respondents calling for WHO to be defunded and disbanded. One person recommended that its functions should be transferred to a pro-free speech alliance of doctors and scientists that was established during Covid-19. 

Others felt that WHO’s power should be curtailed so that it no longer had authority over member states or a role to play in future pandemics; rather, WHO should focus on its original life-affirming mandate or be limited to an advisory role only. 

As one respondent declared:

If WHO is to be involved in future pandemics, the following four basic principles should apply: 
Member countries shall neither be bound by policies nor sanctioned for non-compliance
There shall be no conflict of interests
WHO shall remain a non-political expert platform
There shall be no censorship.


    Covid crimes and consequences

    Due to the seriousness of many of WHO’s failings, there were calls for the organisation to be investigated and held accountable for mismanaging the pandemic, and for criminal procedures to be instituted to “arrest, try and punish those who profit from pandemics.” Some also demanded that WHO be called to testify at Nuremberg 2.0 hearings. 

    A number of very serious allegations were made in the presentations, including:

    • Crimes against humanity, including deception regarding the origins of Covid-19; complicity in Gain of Function research; mandating lockdowns; blocking early treatment protocols; promoting the use of Remdesivir as a treatment; and causing a “vaccine genocide”.
    • Conflicts of interest and corruption, including “fleecing nations to benefit Big Pharma”.
    • Failure to adhere to democratic principles, including violations of the Nuremberg Code. 
    • Willfully distorting the truth by, for example, changing the definitions of a pandemic and herd immunity; and silencing doctors.

    People proposed that those found guilty of these crimes should have their assets seized and pay for damages caused. 

    Was it all a sham?

    By inviting comments on its plans for a new international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, WHO went through the motions of a public participation process. But have they actually taken the time to consider and integrate the comments of the 60% of respondents who disagreed with their plans? Considering the rush to finalise this instrument it appears that the process was just for show and that all contrary evidence and arguments are likely to be ignored. 

    Comments such as “WHO failed us,” and “WHO is the greatest threat to health,” illustrate the depth of mistrust and anger felt by many betrayed or harmed by WHO’s Covid-19 response. But this is of little consequence to an organisation that has lost its way, morally crippled by its commitment to the goals of the Great Reset. 

    A chance to turn this around

    The last three years have been a watershed in the story of humanity. We have been shaken out of our comfort zones and forced to face the insanity of a civilisation in free-fall. The terrible beauty of this time is that our choices are becoming more clearly defined, and in some ways simpler. 

    While WHO may choose to ignore the concerns expressed in these short videos, ironically the exercise has given hundreds of people around the world the opportunity to speak, to listen, and to be heard. In describing the type of world they reject it becomes easier to envision the ‘more beautiful world’ they choose to inhabit.

    According to the respondents, this is a world that values sovereignty, freedom, and informed consent. It is a world in which human rights, people-centred solutions, community, cooperation, and mutual support are promoted. It is also a world in which people value truth, honesty, ethics and accountability, and avoid corruption and conflicts of interest.

    Scientific and medical freedom, suppressed since 2020, are championed. Instead of censorship, alternative views are welcomed, scientific debate is encouraged, and data that can benefit society is shared freely. Centralised decision-making and control is also avoided, recognising that different contexts require unique solutions.

    In this world we acknowledge our mistakes, learn from them, and avoid repeating them. Having made and witnessed so many mistakes in the recent past, the soil in which wisdom can grow is deep. 

    We are also no longer the victims of chronic diseases or pandemics, because we promote holistic health, natural immunity, and natural healing. 

    Having experienced and witnessed much physical, mental, and emotional pain, suffering and loss over the past three years, those rejecting WHO’s proposals recognise the need for healing and restoration. In particular, those injured by the experimental mRNA injections need to be heard, believed, and supported. And finally, as explained so well by PANDA Chairman Nick Hudson, we choose to live in a world that focuses on maintaining good health rather than avoiding disease:

    Covid demonstrated that pandemic preparedness is achieved by ensuring good health prior to viral spread, addressing basic nutrition and metabolic disease. Expanding a centralised pandemic preparedness bureaucracy contradicts principles of community-driven health, ignores diversity of need, and will drive increasing inequity compounding that caused by the Covid response. Our focus should instead be on sharing information, and  empowering communities to act on their own priorities.

    Nick Hudson, PANDA


    Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.

    We would be glad to have your feedback.

    Buy Me A Coffee

    Source: PANDA Read the original article here: