All the big-wig organizations were in on it: WHO, CDC, FDA, WEF, all of them. The end game was to get every human being injected with “technology” where their cells create billions of prions that drive all-cause mortality, so nobody can boil it back to the death jabs, but the world would only consist of a couple billion people within a few years. Hindsight is 20/20, so anyone can see from the carnage of the clot shots that this is no conspiracy theory.
The WHO was the fulcrum for the New World Order and the Great Reset using the Plandemic as the catapult for depopulation and complete control of populace
The WHO was the fulcrum for the New World Order, the Great Reset, and they wanted complete control of everyone’s lives, including taking away all medical freedoms and right to free speech and press.
In fact, the Brownstone Institute recently published a commentary analyzing the draft Pandemic Agreement set to be considered at the upcoming 78th World Health Assembly. The agreement, which complements the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) amended in 2024, aims to centralize pandemic management under the World Health Organization (WHO). While much of the document uses non-binding language like "may" and "where appropriate," it reflects WHO’s push for control over all aspects of pandemics, from declaration to response, including vaccine distribution and supply chains.
Critics argue that the agreement lacks proportionality and narrowly focuses on certain populations while ignoring broader health needs. For instance, it overlooks the importance of individual resilience and the unique health priorities of regions like Africa, which has a predominantly young population.
Instead of decentralizing health care, the WHO is promoting a "whole-of-government" approach, which some say has caused harm, particularly in lower-income countries during the COVID-19 response. The agreement also emphasizes WHO-approved vaccines and allopathic medicines while downplaying traditional healing practices.
The draft agreement links health with climate change, framing it as a major threat to global health. This reflects a growing trend within the WHO to expand its mandate beyond traditional health issues. However, the agreement’s focus on large-scale, centralized solutions raises concerns about practicality and cost, especially for developing countries. For example, Article 9 of the agreement calls for low-cost vaccines and technology transfers to less-developed nations but implementing this could be challenging and expensive.
Additionally, the agreement includes provisions for a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS), aimed at sharing pathogen materials and ensuring equitable benefits. However, the details of this system remain unclear, and critics warn it could create conflicts of interest and Intellectual Property (IP) disputes. The WHO’s role in training and capacity-building for pandemic product production is also seen as overreaching, given its limitations.
Overall, the Brownstone Institute and others argue that the Pandemic Agreement and related IHR amendments give the WHO too much power, potentially at the expense of local health systems and broader health equity. The centralized approach, coupled with WHO’s questionable track record during the COVID-19 pandemic, raises concerns about transparency, fairness, and effectiveness.
The agreement’s focus on global health industry profits and its lack of practical solutions for developing countries further highlight the need for a more balanced, decentralized approach to pandemic preparedness and response.
Bookmark Plague.info to your favorite independent websites for updates on new gain-of-function viruses the CDC and WHO release into the “wild.”
Sources for this article include:
Comments