- Philip Krauss, a lawyer involved in the Citizens' Initiative, is challenging the European Parliament to reject new international health regulations and the WHO pandemic treaty.
- The WHO is pressuring to extend its powers and control over countries and people's self-determination.
- The reform process initiated by the WHO in 2021 includes a new pandemic treaty and amendments to international health regulations.
- These legal instruments will be negotiated and finalized by May 2024, affecting every individual and member state.
- The process is happening behind closed doors and at a fast pace, without public discussion or reporting.
- The treaties will reduce self-determination, human dignity, and democratic participation, and eliminate sovereignty and autonomy of member states.
- The WHO claims absolute leadership and power in all health matters related to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
- The proposed measures include access restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance, and experimental treatments.
- The WHO will control all health-related information, including the right to censor and interfere in social communication.
- There is no mechanism to challenge the WHO's assessments or decisions, leading to a lack of science, democracy, and justice.

- The speaker argues that if a sole authority has predefined the result, there cannot be a proper scientific process, decision-making process, or democracy.
- It is a basic principle that humans have the right to know what they consent to, but they have not been informed about the process that is about to become reality.
- The new pandemic treaty will be subject to a national process of debate and ratification, but the international health regulations will automatically come into force without public consent.
- The violation of the principle of informed consent is severe and goes against the principles of self-determination and democracy.
- The speaker urges citizens to pressure their political representatives to stop these negotiations and protect constitutional order and human rights.
- The speaker provides examples of concerning articles in the treaty, such as giving the WHO total power over health products and crossing out clauses that protect human rights.
- The speaker urges people to contact their politicians to stop this treaty, as time is running out and many governments seem to be rubber-stamping it without considering its implications.

Health and Democracy Conference 13 September, 2023 EU Parliament Strasbourg 

Correction from John, Sorry, I thought Philipp Kruse was Dutch, but actually he is Swiss, apologies

Philipp Kruse one of the lawyers involved in citizens initiative gives a speech at the European Parliament for the ECI citizens initiative to challenge the WHO on their pandemic treaty.

The Powergrab of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Philipp Kruse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ86dgzduVU

https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/po... https://apps.who.int/gb/wgpr/pdf_file... 

Philipp Kruse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07gX9IFqNRM

Now I'm really going to ask you for about 10 or 15 minutes of your time today.

This is from the Health and Democracy Conference, 13th of September, 2023, in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Now, Philip Krauss is 1 of the lawyers involved in the Citizens' Initiative, challenging the European Parliament to reject the new international health regulations and the WHO pandemic treaty.

He's Dutch and speaks superb English so please just give him this bit of time.

New pandemic treaty and amendments to the international health regulations.

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.

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.

This reform process was started in 2021 with 2 working streams, preparing 2 separate legal instruments.

Number 1, a complete new treaty, the so-called new pandemic treaty.

And number 2, significant amendments to the already existing international health regulations.

These 2 legal instruments, treaty and IHR, are about to be negotiated and finalized, and they bring material changes.

The contents of these drafts are on the table.

And already in 8 months' time from now, 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 and at a tremendous speed.

It is not reported nor discussed in our newspapers, in our national parliaments, in universities, nor in society.

This is unacceptable because these 2 legal instruments will affect every 1 of us by reducing, even diminishing, our loss, our right of self-determination, our right in general of human dignity, and it will eliminate the basic principle of democratic participation.

Also, the effects of these treaties will be felt by Member States, who will lose their sovereignty and their autonomy.

Therefore, every human being on this planet should understand the essence of the 2 legal instruments which come under the title of pandemic prevention, pandemic preparedness and response.

In a nutshell, the WHO claims in these 2 legal instruments an absolute and non-questionable leadership in all health matters, as soon as WHO refers itself to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

WHO claims to have the ultimate expertise and the ultimate power in all aspects of this wide field.

Just I recommend to read carefully the current existing draft of the amendments of the International Health Regulations, Article 13a and Article 42.

It shall be granted the power of a massive self-authorisation whenever it claims to act under this purpose.

I recommend to read Article 12 that establish the preconditions for public health emergency of international concern together with Annex 2 of the proposed amendments.

On the basis of an extremely vague concept, 1 health, which basically means anything and nothing, 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.

And thereby, number 4, WHO has the right, 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.

So far, the list of these potential measures can be found in the International Health Regulations Article 18 and there you will also find 1 example of the precondition of the proof of vaccination That was so far meant to be non-binding.

In the future, as the word binding is eliminated, and as we have explicitly written down in Article 13A of the proposal and 42 of the proposal, the commitment that the Member States will give when they accept these amendments, the commitment that they will have to apply the proposed measures.

Further, WHO will most notably reserve and assume the right to define as the sole instance on this planet and to control all information that it claims to be related to health.

And this assumes as well the right for censorship and the right to interfere in social communication.

It seems to be so important to the WHO that these provisions can be found in both of the international new agreements in the international health regulations and in the new pandemic treaty.

And last but not least, of a brief summary that should any time be given once we speak about these new changes is the fact that 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.

So now, if we just look at it as a whole, this right of WHO to self-declare, to also authorize, auto-authorize itself to claim a public health emergency of international concern and to maintain it for as long as it wants.

Number 2, to issue so-called recommendations that will be legally binding and that will be subject to a system of surveillance, surveillance of the people, surveillance of the member states, then the total control and monopoly on information, including the right of censorship, and then The fact that there is no mechanism of control, the control of the WHO, and of correction.

Without the open debate, without the possibility of having different opinions, different hypotheses, different methods to be discussed at the table.

There will be no science and there will be ultimately no democracy and there will be no legal court proceedings and no justice.

If the result is already predefined by 1 sole authority on this planet, there cannot be by definition a proper scientific process, a proper decision-making process, there cannot be any democracy.

Number 2, It is a basic principle, not only of international law, not only of national constitutional law, that we have, as human beings, the right to know what we consent to.

So if we ask ourselves, have we been asked, have we been informed about this process that is about to become reality, the answer is no.

And there is 1 important distinction to be made between these 2 legal instruments.

The new pandemic treaty will be considered by WHO itself as a treaty and thereby shall be subject to a national process of debate and ratification.

But not so for the international health regulations.

The international health regulations, by definition of WHO's own writing, when you read the International Health Regulations, they are qualified as health regulations according to the WHO Constitution Article 21.

As a consequence, there will be an automatic coming into force right after the vote in 2024.

So far, it is still 24 months, But these 24 months have been reduced to 12 months only.

So that means that at the end, after May 2025, the international health regulations will become law automatically.

And there will be a process of automatic enactment of the International Health Regulation.

This is about as severe as it can be when it comes to the violation of the principle of an informed consent.

This principle does not exist only on the individual level, but it exists only also for democracies as a whole.

And it exists under the title of Self-Determination of the People, which is 1 of the founding principles of the United Nations in the United Nations Charter, Article 1 of 1946.

Now, this is the reason why we should all get to know not only what is in these documents, but we shall claim and clearly say that some of these international health regulations and the changes that are modified and declared there will totally be opposed to what we consider our constitutional order, as there is no public information right, as there will be censorship, as there will be human rights not protected, as there will be no checks and balances, as actually it will be the WHO to determine under which legal status we will have to live.

That means the power will not be anymore in the hands of the people.

And therefore, these negotiations have to be stopped immediately.

And 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 beyond of their entrusted vote they can use.

Now as this is just an overview and as we are here in Europe and as within Europe These rules have been already pushed forward to an alarming extent.

We found it important to provide you a more detailed overview on the situation here in Europe.

Well, if you've got concerns about a dystopian, dictatorial future maybe that helped to bring them into focus a little bit.

Let me just give you a couple of examples of what they're talking about.

I mean these are the articles here, I'll put the links of course.

They're talking about here health products, vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, diagnostics, assistive products I'm not quite sure what that is, Cell and gene based therapies and their components, materials or parts.

Now, I don't want these imposed on me through the power of my nation state.

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 honours.

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.

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, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.

Get on to your politicians and tell them to kick this out of the stadium.

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

At the moment, the UK government, the Dutch government, the Australian government, the American government, the Canadian government, the NZ government.

As far as I know, this is just going to be rubber stamped.

Why are our politicians not standing up for our freedoms and our nation sovereignty?

Quite incredible, but this is what's happening.

If you think I've misinterpreted this, then just read this for yourself and let me know how I misinterpreted it but this is the I must say the way I read it is very consistent with Philip Kersey's way of reading it.

But anyway he's probably put it much better than I could so I'm going to leave it there.

Time is running out so May, May next year so I mean it's already October, November, December it's only 7 or 8 months away and the politicians don't seem to even have this on their radar and of course needless to say mainstream media is not giving it the attention that you might think it merits.

Leave it there Philip Curs has said it all.


Speaker 0: You're most welcome to this talk. It's Thursday, the 12th of October. Now I'm really going to ask you for about 10 or 15 minutes of your time today. This is from the Health and Democracy Conference, 13th of September, 2023, in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Now, Philip Krauss is 1 of the lawyers involved in the Citizens' Initiative, challenging the European Parliament to reject the new international health regulations and the WHO pandemic treaty.

He's Dutch and speaks superb English so please just give him this bit of time.

Speaker 1: New pandemic treaty and amendments to the international health regulations. 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. 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. This reform process was started in 2021 with 2 working streams, preparing 2 separate legal instruments. Number 1, a complete new treaty, the so-called new pandemic treaty.

And number 2, significant amendments to the already existing international health regulations. These 2 legal instruments, treaty and IHR, are about to be negotiated and finalized, and they bring material changes. The contents of these drafts are on the table. They are available. They are available for everybody.

And already in 8 months' time from now, 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 and at a tremendous speed. It is not reported nor discussed in our newspapers, in our national parliaments, in universities, nor in society. It is unacceptable. This is unacceptable because these 2 legal instruments will affect every 1 of us by reducing, even diminishing, our loss, our right of self-determination, our right in general of human dignity, and it will eliminate the basic principle of democratic participation.

Also, the effects of these treaties will be felt by Member States, who will lose their sovereignty and their autonomy. Therefore, every human being on this planet should understand the essence of the 2 legal instruments which come under the title of pandemic prevention, pandemic preparedness and response. In a nutshell, the WHO claims in these 2 legal instruments an absolute and non-questionable leadership in all health matters, as soon as WHO refers itself to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. WHO claims to have the ultimate expertise and the ultimate power in all aspects of this wide field. Just I recommend to read carefully the current existing draft of the amendments of the International Health Regulations, Article 13a and Article 42.

It shall be granted the power of a massive self-authorisation whenever it claims to act under this purpose. I recommend to read Article 12 that establish the preconditions for public health emergency of international concern together with Annex 2 of the proposed amendments. On the basis of an extremely vague concept, 1 health, which basically means anything and nothing, 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. And thereby, number 4, WHO has the right, 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. So far, the list of these potential measures can be found in the International Health Regulations Article 18 and there you will also find 1 example of the precondition of the proof of vaccination That was so far meant to be non-binding.

In the future, as the word binding is eliminated, and as we have explicitly written down in Article 13A of the proposal and 42 of the proposal, the commitment that the Member States will give when they accept these amendments, the commitment that they will have to apply the proposed measures. This is not enough. Further, WHO will most notably reserve and assume the right to define as the sole instance on this planet and to control all information that it claims to be related to health. And this assumes as well the right for censorship and the right to interfere in social communication. It seems to be so important to the WHO that these provisions can be found in both of the international new agreements in the international health regulations and in the new pandemic treaty.

And last but not least, of a brief summary that should any time be given once we speak about these new changes is the fact that 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. So now, if we just look at it as a whole, this right of WHO to self-declare, to also authorize, auto-authorize itself to claim a public health emergency of international concern and to maintain it for as long as it wants. Number 2, to issue so-called recommendations that will be legally binding and that will be subject to a system of surveillance, surveillance of the people, surveillance of the member states, then the total control and monopoly on information, including the right of censorship, and then The fact that there is no mechanism of control, the control of the WHO, and of correction.

What do we have as a result? Well, it is very simple to say. Without the open debate, without the possibility of having different opinions, different hypotheses, different methods to be discussed at the table. There will be no science and there will be ultimately no democracy and there will be no legal court proceedings and no justice. If the result is already predefined by 1 sole authority on this planet, there cannot be by definition a proper scientific process, a proper decision-making process, there cannot be any democracy.

Number 2, It is a basic principle, not only of international law, not only of national constitutional law, that we have, as human beings, the right to know what we consent to. So if we ask ourselves, have we been asked, have we been informed about this process that is about to become reality, the answer is no. And there is 1 important distinction to be made between these 2 legal instruments. The new pandemic treaty will be considered by WHO itself as a treaty and thereby shall be subject to a national process of debate and ratification. But not so for the international health regulations.

The international health regulations, by definition of WHO's own writing, when you read the International Health Regulations, they are qualified as health regulations according to the WHO Constitution Article 21. And what does that mean? As a consequence, there will be an automatic coming into force right after the vote in 2024. So far, it is still 24 months, But these 24 months have been reduced to 12 months only. So that means that at the end, after May 2025, the international health regulations will become law automatically.

So we will not be asked. We have not been informed. And there will be a process of automatic enactment of the International Health Regulation. This is about as severe as it can be when it comes to the violation of the principle of an informed consent. This principle does not exist only on the individual level, but it exists only also for democracies as a whole.

And it exists under the title of Self-Determination of the People, which is 1 of the founding principles of the United Nations in the United Nations Charter, Article 1 of 1946. Now, this is the reason why we should all get to know not only what is in these documents, but we shall claim and clearly say that some of these international health regulations and the changes that are modified and declared there will totally be opposed to what we consider our constitutional order, as there is no public information right, as there will be censorship, as there will be human rights not protected, as there will be no checks and balances, as actually it will be the WHO to determine under which legal status we will have to live. That means the power will not be anymore in the hands of the people. And therefore, these negotiations have to be stopped immediately. And 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 beyond of their entrusted vote they can use.

Now as this is just an overview and as we are here in Europe and as within Europe These rules have been already pushed forward to an alarming extent. We found it important to provide you a more detailed overview on the situation here in Europe.

Speaker 0: Well, if you've got concerns about a dystopian, dictatorial future maybe that helped to bring them into focus a little bit. Let me just give you a couple of examples of what they're talking about. I mean these are the articles here, I'll put the links of course. They're talking about here health products, vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, diagnostics, assistive products I'm not quite sure what that is, Cell and gene based therapies and their components, materials or parts. Now, I don't want these imposed on me through the power of my nation state.

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 honours. 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.

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, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons. Why would you cross that out? Get on to your politicians and tell them to kick this out of the stadium.

I don't want it. If you want it, do nothing. If you don't want it, contact your politicians and they can stop this. But we're running out of time. At the moment, the UK government, the Dutch government, the Australian government, the American government, the Canadian government, the NZ government.

As far as I know, this is just going to be rubber stamped. Why are our politicians not standing up for our freedoms and our nation sovereignty? Quite incredible, but this is what's happening. If you think I've misinterpreted this, then just read this for yourself and let me know how I misinterpreted it but this is the I must say the way I read it is very consistent with Philip Kersey's way of reading it. But anyway he's probably put it much better than I could so I'm going to leave it there.

Time is running out so May, May next year so I mean it's already October, November, December it's only 7 or 8 months away and the politicians don't seem to even have this on their radar and of course needless to say mainstream media is not giving it the attention that you might think it merits. Leave it there Philip Curs has said it all. Thank you for watching.

Create a main catchy title for highest visibility on Facebook and simplest words for understanding and attraction 

Create a main catchy title for highest visibility on Facebook and simplest words for understanding and attraction. And main points to summarize main points. 

See all Dr. John Campbell transcripts on Youtube

WHO Pandemic treaty danger