Pandemic Treaty: Reports of Its Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

When I posted my first report about the resurging Pandemic Treaty a couple of weeks ago, the comments were mixed. Today, I'll turn this article over to Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian to explain better.

Editor's Commentary: My original article about the rise of Pandemic Treaty 2.0 had some flaws to it. I'm not sure what those flaws were, but considering there were questions sent to me that I felt had been explained, it's on me that I didn't state everything clearly enough. I followed up that article with another from Natural News that answered some of the questions.

Now, I'm turning to Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian to add more clarifications and updates. The Pandemic Treaty is still moving full-steam ahead, but the mammoth opposition that it hit in late spring and early summer has almost completely dissolved. Most who fought against it then are acting like we already won when in reality this is getting closer to becoming a reality. I suspect we'll start seeing moves made in December. I see it implemented in 2023 or possibly 2024 (Knightly's article below leans toward 2024 as well). It will be swift and there won't be much opposition because they will likely roll it out when some crisis either prompts them to do so or is unrelated and acts as a distraction.

On today's episode of The JD Rucker Show, I dove into Knightly's article and offered perspectives on why this is such an existential threat. Here's the video from the segment specifically about the Pandemic Treaty.

Here's the article by Kit Knightly...

---

A few days ago the British Medical Journal published a report headlined:

Don’t let economic crisis distract from preparing for a future pandemic

The headline is quoting Sarah Gilbert – team leader behind the development AstraZeneca Covid “vaccine” – addressing the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) when it opened on September 29th. It was part of a keynote discussion on preparing for the next pandemic, and more specifically the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty.

Now, you might be thinking at this point, “wait, wasn’t the Pandemic Treaty voted down at the world health summit in May?”

And the answer to that is no. You’re probably remembering the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, and they weren’t outright defeated, they passed a watered-down version after some backroom compromises.

Back to the WISH Summit, where multiple high-level “experts”, vaccine manufacturers and health ministers expressed regret that countries are already neglecting pandemic preparedness. To quote Gilbert again:

We are already seeing investment moving away from pandemic preparedness, and I hope politicians don’t take their eye off the ball.”

Now, obviously, a vaccine manufacturer has clear motives for saying this. A mix of scaremongering and good old-fashioned profiteering (one company claims to be working on portable labs that can be shipped to the third world in the event of a pandemic – a surefire moneyspinner).

It may also be part of the prep work for bringing Covid back over the winter, there is a reason #Covidisnotover keeps trending on twitter after all.

The Cliff note version is the “Pandemic Treaty”, the one they all stopped talking about a few months ago, is not going away. While it isn’t supposed to be implemented until at least 2024, what it lacks in immediacy it will make up in reach.

WISH wasn’t the only international panel discussing the Pandemic Treaty the last few weeks, while Sarah Gilbert was addressing them in Doha, across the world in Geneva the WHO was conducting the public consultation stage of the process.

Reporting this on September 29th, Health Policy Watch headlined “From Equity to Conspiracies, People Say What They Want From a Pandemic Treaty”.

They quote Dame Barbara Stocking (who is apparently an actual person, and not comedy drag act), from the Panel for Global Public Health Convention:

“Countries need to be held to account. There is now strong evidence that treaties without compliance measures are ineffective. We believe the best way to do this is by having an independent assessment body within the treaty structure for at arm’s length of the WHO.”

The report adds:

The panel also wants to “incentivize countries to be accountable” where, for example, “non-delivery could have implications for a country’s financial stability” in terms of article four of the IMF.

Can you see the two-pronged nature of “pandemic preparedness”?

“Incentivising countries to be held accountable”, versus “compliance measures” that have “implications for a nation’s financial stability”.

Put more simply: Nations who do what the WHO tells them to do get money, and nations who don’t…well, they don’t. They lose money. It’s bribery and blackmail, dressed up in the language of “aid” and “sanctions”.

These are the exact same amendments they tried to add to the International Health Regulations back in May. Essentially, as we have reported before, it would empower the WHO to create a “pandemic” out of thin air whenever it wants to by incentivising poor countries reliant on aid to name any flu outbreak a new “pandemic”.

The good news is that our side has already scored some points, and the establishment is playing on the back foot, to mix some sporting metaphors.

It’s possible that the compromised IHR amendments were almost “scuppered” as a direct result of public pressure and awareness campaigns, and the same has already slowed the progress of the treaty.

You can tell by just how many fact-checks there are out there. The Washington Post, France24, Reuters, all have run articles pre-emptive defending the Pandemic Treaty’s honour.

That was a direct result of alt media, and their readers, spreading awareness. And we’re still making progress.

The very fact the Pandemic Treaty’s development has been pushed from the front pages to footnotes in relatively obscure or specific outlets is a sign that a) they didn’t expect the pushback they got already, but b) they are still determined to push ahead with the plan.

The Health Policy Watch article I quoted earlier has an entire paragraph devoted to mocking the “conspiracy theorists”:

Meanwhile, a flotilla of conspiracy theorists also submitted the comments, condemning COVID-19 vaccines (“gene genocide”, according to one), WHO “global domination”, masks and social distancing. People from Australia, Poland and Switzerland seemed particularly agitated about these issues, as well as any notion that there could be global decision-making about how to address pandemics.

It might not feel like it, but that’s what progress looks like. that they are acknowledging the position – even under scorn – means something.

To quote a saying frequently misattributed to Gandhi, first they ignore you then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.