Peter Myers Digest: Covid Related

(1) Ex Qantas Captain, Graham Hood’s Powerful Witness Statement
(2) Graham Hood, Qantas Captain Who Refused Covid Vaccine; he resigned & fought
(3) Blood Bank Contamination from mRNA Vaccinated Individuals
(4) WHO pressures Governments to Sign Pandemic Treaty

(1) Ex Qantas Captain, Graham Hood’s Powerful Witness Statement

Ex Qantas Captain, Graham Hood’s Powerful Witness Statement

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Thank you Hoody for your courage in speaking the truth at the second public hearing to set the Terms of Reference for a future Royal Commission into COVID.

“I urge this Senate and I urge this government with these words: Government you must listen. This country is in dire straits. The spirit of this country has been systematically destroyed and I’ve witnessed it firsthand. I’ve done what many of you don’t have the time to do. I’ve been face to face with people who’ve lost loved ones that they know were from vaccine injury. And I don’t know whether these excess deaths are being caused by vaccines or ‘long COVID,’ or whatever else it might be. It could be an additive in food. I don’t know, but nobody else seems to know either and that’s why we must stop. We must investigate. We must do a proper debriefing. We must apply proper human factors. And we must bring the people that I mentioned that have been locked away with censorship, back out of the dark with their data so that we can start healing the people of this country. And if we don’t do that we have neglected an opportunity that will go down in history as one of the greatest human factor failures in the world.”

(2) Graham Hood, Qantas Captain Who Refused Covid Vaccine; he resigned & fought

Graham “Hoody” Hood — The Courageous Pilot

Leonie Robson

20 JULY 2022

Reluctant heroes are usually the best ones. He was perfect for this job, because he didn’t want it. Erstwhile Qantas pilot Graham Hood shared his life’s story of trauma, loss, salvation, healing and renewal.

Last week my husband and I attended a rally at our local church. It was thrown together with haste, yet with great success. Attended by some 250-plus people on a rainy day, the drawcard was a man, his wife and a story of hope.

Graham (Hoody) Hood rose to prominence during the COVID-19 crisis of <> lockdowns, coercive vaccination and eroded freedoms that we have all lived under these past couple of years.

Graham Hood was a <> Qantas pilot, who, after being told that he would lose his job should he not agree to be vaccinated, had the strength and moral character to stand and say “No”. Not just to vaccination, but to government tyranny, <> corporate self-interest and the sheer bloody-mindedness of bureaucrats falling in line across the world, who made decisions that to this day remain at the very least controversial, at the most <> unconscionable.

Graham Hood is made of tough stuff. He would not go passively into the darkness, tail between his legs, but chose to stand for the freedom past generations laid down their lives to obtain for us.

So, he made a video, a poem of defiance. He shook his fist and proclaimed, “What are we doing?” That simple video made him a hero to so many people who had no voice and were losing hope quickly.

We listened to his story, the good and the bad, and came away knowing he has been in many ways ‘a man of grief, acquainted with sorrows’. If he reads this, I think he could well bow his head, thinking he was not worthy of those words — I disagree. Jesus said, “Let he who wishes to follow me take up His cross daily.” Graham and Michelle Hood do this, and humbly.


As the rain pelted down on the tin roof, one of Graham’s friends, David Stojcic, explained how it had become necessary to find a new venue or two.

Newcastle City Council, after taking the booking of City Hall — which holds approximately 800 people — cancelled. A spokesperson quoted clause 18-4 of the hire agreement: Newcastle City Hall is an iconic venue and prides itself on welcoming a variety of family-friendly events, promoting the well-being of the community. “We reserve the right to cancel the agreement for any socially harmful activity or activity harmful to the community’s well-being. Graham Hood’s appearance at our venue contravenes the above conditions.”

Newcastle City Council… because of them, Newcastle has become a member of the Smart City initiative. <> God help us.

It appears Graham Hood is a dangerous man. Dangerous because he speaks the truth, he and his wife are people of integrity. When invited to speak at <> freedom rallies and events, people have often said, “We really like you, but don’t talk about God.” His response? Stuff it.

Identity in Christ

He spoke about the exhilaration of flying, up there in the rarefied air, coming down to earth. He considers it a stepping-stone to where he is now. At age 70, he graduated recently with a university degree to prepare for what’s happening around us.

People have often described him as clever; he shrugs this off, saying, “We are not defined by how we earn our living, but by who we are in Christ.” For most of his life, he didn’t want to know about Jesus. He came to faith through a corporate denomination, whom he says has for the most part sadly let us all down.

Graham said:

“I put no stock in religion; what God requires is our heart and mind through the cross; without it, we’re nothing. Brothers and sisters, love and compassion wins. Different faiths don’t matter, but bonding and the building of unity in faith in God.”

He then encouraged us to turn around, say hello and give somebody a hug.

“Locked in fake social isolation, we lost this. The atmosphere of <> fear kept us apart, suspicious and compliant. Tyranny, loss of freedoms, therefore freedom of choice or free will. We were never meant to live like this. Fear is <> False Evidence Appearing Real. He whom the Son sets free is free indeed. Freedom itself has been persecuted.”

Dark Times

He spoke candidly about his life before coming to Christ, about being stuck in addiction to <> pornography, which gutted him on the inside. The trappings of success were on display in his life, but he had a gaping hole in his soul. He spoke of his dad being a hard man, and his mum at times being subjugated.

Caught in a desperately unhappy marriage, he was trapped in a cycle, taking his <> destiny away from him. He had suicidal thoughts and had already penned a day in his diary to end his life, and “get even with those he left behind.”

At that time, his daughter was a ballerina and lived in Cairo. In a phone conversation, she informed him she was becoming Muslim and marrying. He was pretty much aghast. Her reply was, “Before you criticise me and my choices, what about you? What do you believe in, Dad?”

He thought about it for a week, deeply. At the end of the week, his answer was, “I think there must be a God, but religion is conducted by men who <> really stink at it.” He then went back to normal.

However, he asserted there must be a God; he argued with himself about it, hands to the sky, saying, ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ He phoned his daughter and she asked if he was OK. He answered, “I have to get out of the marriage, I’m going to get my affairs fixed and in order and build a shack in the bush.” And so, he did. His divorce was painful, and his kids suffered, but it had to be.

Love at First Sight

One day he boarded a flight to Perth. He told an amusing story about waiting in line to go to the toilet. The stewardess told him, “You can’t go in there yet, there’s a lady in here, but she’s worth waiting for.” A few minutes later, a beautiful lady opened the door, smiled and said, “Are you the man who made the announcements?” He smiled and said, ‘Yes, I am.’ She replied, “Well, thanks for making us feel safe.”

They talked for a while and when he went back to the cockpit, his copilot asked what kept him. He answered, “I’ve just fallen in love.” He met her at the 11th hour, and turned his life around: “A life that exploded with relevance and hope for the future.” His wife introduced him to Jesus in 2006.

He likens life to a 10,000-piece jigsaw — you pull the pieces out and try to find the corners and the straight edges, but Jesus is the master puzzler. “We always want to be in control, but Jesus reached in and picked me up. Jesus put me where I fit. When we’re in control, we jam a piece in, and it buckles, all the pieces stress, uncomfortable, and not in the right place. It was like Jesus had said to me, ‘Now can I put you in the right place?’ God lets you go to the edge with free will, then He introduces His will.”

Healing and Renewal

When he and Michelle talked and examined what they wanted out of life, each other’s dreams overlapped. Michelle had been spiritually abused, but part of her healing was that she wanted to return to the church where she sustained that abuse and be baptised there. She asked Graham if he would come. He said he would, if only to be her bodyguard. He recalls how in that service the minister preached to him, specifically for him it seemed. He asked Michelle if she had said anything to the minister about him, and she replied, “No.”

When they were leaving, the minister spoke to him on the way out and asked him a few questions. Hoody was coy and it took a while to actually admit he was a Qantas pilot. Amazingly, the minister said, “Wow, I used to work at the airport in maintenance, do you know such-and-such?”

“I do,” replied Hoody. So began a relationship with the church. Six weeks later they married and were baptised on the same day. Since then, he and Michelle have been involved in lay ministry, counselling broken people involved in addiction, broken relationships and loss of hope. They are servants of God, make no mistake. Their faith is real, and they live it proudly, openly and without apology for who they are and what they believe in.

Brave New World

Graham went on:

“That was the past, but what about now? Freedom, liberty of conscience; 100,000 Aussies died for that freedom. We have a system set up to break down the family unit. Call them the Illuminati, the elite; their purpose is to take men down, it’s their <> game plan. Political correctness, the <> definition of a woman; there’s less of God, the darker it’s getting. All allowed to happen on our watch.

“Freedom was eroded for us to comply. We need to be building better communities, connecting together in compassion and in love. Separate what faith is, to corporate religion, because it has <> let us down. We have the good news of the Gospel; compare religion, denomination, theology to Jesus who came and He’s able to save.

“Our definition of heroes has been redefined into sporting greats and such. The hero is you, standing up for freedom even when you’ve lost family homes, job security; heroes go on regardless defending the defenceless.”

“You see, nowadays men have never been taught, they are criticised and demonised. Most are little boys in grown men’s bodies; it’s a truism, and our system is set up to fail them. Real heroes create an atmosphere where women and children feel safe. Four times more men <> take their lives compared to women. Seven times more women talk about it. We start broken. God knows how broken we are, so stop trying to cover it up. We’re all broken.”

Hoody quoted <> Galatians 1:10 —

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man?
If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

He and Michelle have a property where they have counselled men, addicts and couples.

He asks a question to the men: “Would you like your daughter to marry a man like you?” Defects are exposed, and healing comes in.

Terrible History

He goes on to explain how we got here — men, in particular.

Men lost their way during the Industrial Revolution. The industrial/military complex, owned by wealthy men sent them off to the coal mines and foundries. Subjected to accidents and ‘dusting’, they often died young.

World War I, with its destruction, shattered families; there were many broken lives due to their father figure being eliminated or scarred deeply. World War II was created by Germany being starved to death by reparations demanded by the League of Nations, the forerunner off the United Nations. The cycle has been repeated in every war since then.

Filling the Breach

<> Role models must be re-established. Men must be able to say, “It’s okay, son. I’m here.” It must be generational. Broken families and one-parent families are all too common; there is a gaping wound in society. The struggles with the dysfunction of families and marriages must be addressed. God’s grace and mercy fills so many gaping wounds. Love covers a multitude of sins. Reconciliation is never too late, or too early.

Hoody spoke of his oft-troubled relationship with his <> dad. His parent’s marriage was far from perfect. He recalls the abject horror of witnessing his dad shaving his mother’s hair, with his brother’s help, for the offence of dyeing her hair black. It wounded him deeply.

He became addicted to pornography, when, at the age of twelve he discovered a Playboy magazine in his family caravan. Filled with shame after the encounter, he felt dirty, but had nowhere to turn.

He recalled his father’s expectations and backhanded compliments on his achievements: “I’ll be proud of you when…” Nothing quite lived up to Dad’s measuring stick.

After his father witnessed Hoody’s new life, sustained over many years, they had a father-to-son chat, where Hoody asked his dad if he was ready to accept Jesus. “I reckon I am, son.”

So, dad was born again. About three months later dad slipped into a coma-like state. When Graham and Michelle arrived, they were told he was unresponsive. But Graham saw a reaction when dad heard his voice. Going to his bedside, he took his hand and said, “I know you’re scared, Dad, but just one more sleep and you’ll be at peace. I really love you, Dad. I honour you. You’ve been the best father.” His dad reached up with his hand, and soon after slipped into God’s eternal embrace.

What Now?

Hoody’s philosophy continues to be God and family-centred.

“Everything needs to be established, said and done when the sons are young. When we are old, if we’ve done our job, we need to hear, ‘Thank you, Dad, you did a great job.’ We need to re-establish the cycle of manhood, being strong and courageous, establishing love and trust in manhood.

“Whether it’s standing against a needle or some other principle, we need to say, ‘We will not be bought or sold.’ The last election showed how we have compromised. The country chose lattes over freedom. Look at the Anzac Day disgrace: cenotaphs were open to politicians and bureaucrats, not the Diggers, to our shame. We have to plant the flag and live by it.

“Our lives are a rich tapestry, but with some dark threads. But God knows and makes beauty from them if we let Him.”

A Question-and-Answer session followed his talk. So did a call for the men present to Stand for Freedom and commitment to family and country. (80% stood and made their way forward in a show of commitment and solidarity.) Then came the call for Salvation. Some 15-20 people came forward and were led in the prayer of salvation by Ps. Col Grigg. Particularly poignant was a little white-haired lady, in her 80s making her way forward to accept Jesus Christ as her Saviour.

There was no shame in Hoody’s words, no weakness. Just his consuming passion for the Amazing Grace of God.

I’m a child of the late 50s and watched Robin Hood as a child. Was he a fictional character, steeped in myth, based on fact? Who knows? One line of the theme song resonates with me after meeting Graham Hood: Feared by the bad, loved by the good.

If you want to bring the Bible into it, think of David, anointed by God, pursued by King Saul. He hid in the <> cave of Adullam, and there he was joined by a band of disgruntled, disaffected and fed-up people. Out of this bunch came David’s Mighty Men of valour. More than that, they became a community and a family, a band of brothers.

Perhaps that’s our enemy’s greatest fear. Our unity.

(3) Blood Bank Contamination From mRNA Vaccinated Individuals

Researchers Warn Against Blood Bank Contamination From mRNA Vaccinated Individuals

Since there are no reliable ways to separate spike proteins and mRNA from vaccinated blood, authors recommended discarding their usage.

By Naveen Athrappully


Receiving blood transfusion from COVID-19-vaccinated individuals could pose a medical risk to unvaccinated recipients since numerous adverse events are being reported among vaccinated people worldwide, according to a recent study from Japan.

The preprint <> review, published on March 15, examined whether receiving blood from COVID-19-vaccinated individuals is safe or poses a health risk. Many nations have reported that mRNA vaccine usage has resulted in “post-vaccination thrombosis and subsequent cardiovascular damage, as well as a wide variety of diseases involving all organs and systems, including the nervous system,” it said.

Repeated vaccinations can make people more vulnerable to COVID-19, it said. If the blood contains spike proteins, it becomes necessary to remove these proteins prior to administration, and there is no such technology currently available, the authors wrote.

Contrary to earlier expectations, genes and proteins from genetic vaccines have been found to persist in the blood of vaccine recipients for “prolonged periods of time.”

In addition, “a variety of adverse events resulting from genetic vaccines are now being reported worldwide.” This includes a wide range of diseases related to blood and blood vessels.

Some studies have reported that the spike protein in the mRNA vaccines is neurotoxic and capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, the review stated. “Thus, there is no longer any doubt that the spike protein used as an antigen in genetic vaccines is itself toxic.”

Moreover, people who have taken multiple shots of mRNA vaccines can have several exposures to the same antigen within a small time frame, which may lead to them being “imprinted with a preferential immune response to that antigen.”

This has resulted in COVID-19 vaccine recipients becoming “more susceptible to contracting COVID-19.”

Given such concerns, medical professionals should be aware of the “various risks associated with blood transfusions using blood products derived from people who have suffered from long COVID and from genetic vaccine recipients, including those who have received mRNA vaccines.”

The impact of such genetic vaccines on blood products as well as the actual damage caused by them are currently unknown, the authors wrote.

“In order to avoid these risks and prevent further expansion of blood contamination and complication of the situation, we strongly request that the vaccination campaign using genetic vaccines be suspended and that a harm–benefit assessment be carried out as early as possible.”

Repeated vaccination of genetic vaccines can also end up causing “alterations in immune function” among recipients. This raises the risk of serious illnesses due to opportunistic infections or pathogenic viruses, which would not have been an issue if the immune system were normal, the review said.

“Therefore, from the perspective of traditional containment of infectious diseases, greater caution is required in the collection of blood from genetic vaccine recipients and the subsequent handling of blood products, as well as during solid organ transplantation and even surgical procedures in order to avoid the risk of accidental blood-borne infection,” it stated.

The review was funded by members of the Japanese Society for Vaccine-related Complications and the Volunteer Medical Association. Authors did not declare any conflict of interest.

Dangers With Blood Transfusions

The review pointed out that the genetic vaccination status of blood donors is not collected by organizations even though the use of such blood may pose risks to patients. As such, authors recommended that when blood products are derived from such people, “it is necessary to confirm the presence or absence of spike protein or modified mRNA as in other tests for pathogens.”

“If the blood product is found to contain the spike protein or a modified gene derived from the genetic vaccine, it is essential to remove them,” it stated. “However, there is currently no reliable way to do so.”

Since “there is no way to reliably remove the pathogenic protein or mRNA, we suggest that all such blood products be discarded until a definitive solution is found.”

The authors pointed out that cases of encephalitis among people who received blood from dengue vaccine recipients were reported as recently as last year. This suggests that the present system of tracking and managing blood products “is not adequate.”

Since genetic vaccines were implemented on a global scale for a massive population, “it is expected that the situation will already be complicated” compared to previous drug disasters.

As such, there is an “urgent need” for legislation and international treaties related to the management of blood products, the authors wrote.

The issue of blood transfusion from COVID-19 vaccine recipients has been highly controversial. In 2022, a court in New Zealand <> ruled against the parents of a sick infant son after they refused blood transfusions from vaccinated people.

The parents had asked the health system to allow blood transfusion from unvaccinated individuals, with donors who were already prepared to contribute. In its ruling, the court stripped the parents of medical custody of their son.

In Canada, doctors have also reported the trend of people’s resistance to vaccinated blood transfusions. Speaking to <> CBC in 2022, Dr. Dave Sidhu, the southern Alberta medical lead for transfusion and transplant medicine, said that parents of sick children were requesting unvaccinated blood.

“We’re seeing it about once or twice a month, at this stage. And the worry is of course that these requests might increase,” he said at the time.

In Wyoming, Rep. Sarah Penn (R-Wyo.) has sponsored a bill mandating that blood donated by people who have taken COVID-19 shots be labeled. Doing so will allow recipients who do not wish to accept such blood to reject them.

In an interview with <> Cowboy State Daily, Ms. Penn said, “For various reasons, many people have purposefully strived to keep the mRNA therapies out of their bodies, even to the point that some lost their livelihoods … Their concerns are warranted.”

(4) WHO pressures Governments to Sign Pandemic Treaty

Amidst Growing Resistance, the WHO Turns Up Heat on Members to Sign Pandemic Treaty

‘We formally reject WHO and any of these international organizations,’ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said.

By Kevin Stocklin

April 7, 2024

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.
Story continues below advertisement
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.”

At stake is a new global medical treaty, as well as amendments to existing International Health Regulations (IHRs), which together would make the WHO the central authority during pandemics and other WHO-declared health crises, while sending tens of billions of dollars to this UN subsidiary. Critics say the WHO has studiously avoided calling the agreement a treaty because treaties typically require approval from national legislatures, and in the case of the United States by two-thirds of the Senate.

What has instead been deemed the Pandemic Agreement or Pandemic Accord, together with amendments to the IHRs, is scheduled to be approved in Geneva, Switzerland, at the <> World Health Assembly’s annual meeting on May 27–June 1.

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.
Tying the signing of WHO agreements to religious calendars, their <> letter stated that the gathering of WHO delegates “commences as Muslims observe the holy month of Ramadan … when the second week of negotiations begins, Hindus will mark Holi … Christians will be observing lent, and you will conclude on Good Friday … the text of the Pandemic Accord will be finalised during Passover … and the Accord is due to be signed at the World Health Assembly just after Buddhists celebrate Vesak.”

How Much Power Will the WHO Get?

Despite these efforts, however, some still have doubts.

One of the primary concerns that critics have raised is that countries would cede authority to the WHO, once that organization declares a “health emergency.” WHO advocates, however, say such concerns are unfounded and giving voice to them could jeopardize the approval process.

<> ‘The Endgame Is Power’: Rep. Ralph Norman on Trump’s Indictment and the WHO Pandemic Treaty | ATL:NOW
Play Video

“The accord is being put at risk by a misinformation campaign through social media outlets that is falsely accusing the WHO,” Mr. Brown <> stated.

“No country will cede any sovereignty, and no country will see their national laws set aside,” he stated. “It is time for countries to expose fake news disinformation campaign by conspiracy theorists to torpedo a much-needed accord.”

In line with that view, the Associated Press (AP) issued a “ <> fact check” in February 2023, declaring that the idea that member nations would lose sovereignty was “false.” The AP cited the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is currently negotiating the agreement on America’s behalf, which stated: “It is false to claim that the World Health Organization has now, or will have by virtue of these activities, any authority to direct U.S. health policy or national health emergency response actions.”

The AP also cited a refutation from Georgetown University law professor Lawrence Gostin, who helped draft the treaty as director of the university’s WHO Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. Mr. Gostin told the AP that the treaty uses terms like “should,” indicating suggestions, rather than “must,” to underscore that the WHO remains a consultative rather than an authoritative body.

However, the language in the <> March 13 draft of the treaty appears to be compulsory, stating throughout the document that “the Parties commit to …” and “the Parties shall …” with the word “shall” used more than <> 160 times.
Story continues below advertisement

In addition, the IHR amendments state that member states “recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during a public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”

Other areas of concern regarding sovereignty include a directive that “health measures” stipulated by the WHO “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all Parties” and that “State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State-Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

In addition, references to the documents being “non-binding” on member states were removed.

“They are trying to make out that this is some mild feel-good agreement that won’t really affect anyone and therefore doesn’t need to go to national legislatures,” Dr. David Bell a public health physician who formerly worked with the WHO on infectious disease diagnostics, told The Epoch Times. Dr. Bell has been tracking the progress of the agreements with a critical eye.

Supporters of the agreements have also asserted that, regardless of what the documents say, the treaty and IHR amendments are toothless because the WHO will have no authority to enforce any of its directives or recommendations, and cannot force lockdowns or quarantines on member nations.

However, a <> 2022 petition signed by 15 state attorneys general argues that the HHS could have such authority once the WHO declares a health emergency.

The state AGs wrote in protest of an HHS decision on Jan. 19, 2017, “one day before President [Barack] Obama’s second term expired,” to give the Director-General of the WHO the authority to declare a public health emergency within the United States.

“Allowing an international organization to determine when public health emergencies exist in the United States necessarily allows that organization to use police powers that were neither given to it or to the federal government by the States,” the AGs stated, calling it “an extreme violation of both State and federal sovereignty.”

During a health emergency, the state AGs wrote, “HHS may provide for the apprehension and examination of individuals in certain infected states. Upon recommendation of the HHS Secretary, the President of the United States may also authorize the detention of individuals under certain circumstances.”

Is a Pandemic Treaty the Solution?

Another concern, critics say, is that the process of signing over new powers to the WHO has been needlessly rushed and avoids the public discussions and debates that should be part of the process when countries enter into treaties.

According to a report by a research group at the University of Leeds in the UK, co-authored by Dr. Bell, “Pandemic risk is characterized as an ‘existential threat to humanity’ and is being used to justify proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and a new legally binding Pandemic Agreement.”

But the report argues that, based on the WHO’s own data, the evidence does not support the urgent need for, or the benefits of, giving more power to the WHO.

What the WHO claims is an escalating frequency of pandemics can be largely explained by improved diagnostic testing in recent decades, the authors say, nor is the proposed remedy of centralizing pandemic response within the WHO justified by objective facts.

Story continues below advertisement

“They require countries to comply because they’re saying that, during COVID countries didn’t act fast enough, and therefore they have to be told what to do,” Dr. Bell said. But the WHO has not explained how, if it had the authority it is now seeking, it would have saved more lives.

“The whole narrative that they need this at all is not supported by any evidence that they put forward,” he said.

Many policy analysts have argued that the WHO’s actions during COVID-19 did little to help the public and may have even exacerbated the crisis.

“The WHO should have played an important role in sharing information with member nations during a global pandemic, but instead it demonstrated that it could not and would not share information in a timely and accurate manner,” the state AGs wrote in their petition. “Instead of reporting public health information, the WHO chose to repeat Chinese propaganda regarding COVID.”

The WHO agreements also require that billions of dollars be paid to the WHO by member nations to enable it to carry out its new duties.

“This agenda is supported by unprecedented annual financial requests,” the Leeds University report states, including $36 billion in new member contributions and an additional $10 billion for what the WHO calls “One Health” interventions.

One Health, as defined in the Pandemic Agreement, is “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems.” A One Health approach could effectively expand the authority of health officials into areas such as farming, pollution, and climate change.

US States Push Back

In response to the pandemic treaty, several U.S. states have taken steps to ensure that state authority is not superseded by the WHO agreements.

In May 2023, Florida passed a law that state health officials “may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.”

“In this bill we formally reject W.H.O. and any of these international organizations,” Gov. Ron DeSantis <> stated.
In March, the Louisiana state senate <,World%20Health%20Organization%20(WHO).> unanimously approved a bill stating that “the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Louisiana.” That bill moved to the state House of Representatives for their consideration.

Tennessee lawmakers are currently working on legislation to give citizens the ability to “nullify” mandates that conflict with their constitutional rights. Public support for this legislation is growing, insiders say.

“Nullification is basically standing up to an unconstitutional law, rule, regulation or executive order,” Karen Bracken, founder of Tennessee Citizens for State Sovereignty, told The Epoch Times. “We’re a group that’s fighting to restore state sovereignty, hopefully restore it in every state, but we’re starting with Tennessee.”

Looking ahead to the World Health Assembly meeting next month, critics say that in addition to circumventing legislative approval by member states, the WHO may be running afoul of its own procedures to get the documents signed this spring. Some even suggest that the WHO may come away from the gathering in Geneva without a deal.

“It looks very likely that they won’t be able to agree on, certainly the pandemic agreement, and probably the IHR, before the deadline,” Dr. Bell said. Countries have not been given the time to assess how the agreements will impact their budgets, resources, and health systems, or the extent to which they are able to comply with terms, he said.

Dr. Meryl Nass, a physician who has been critical of the WHO, said that several countries, including New Zealand, Slovakia, and the Netherlands, have raised concerns about the agreements. And too many corners may have been cut to get the new health deal approved this spring, she said.

The WHO constitution “is very specific about what kinds of regulations the WHO can issue, and they’re limited,” Dr. Nass told The Epoch Times. “What has been put into the [IHR] amendments goes way beyond what they’re allowed to issue as regulations and would need to be issued as a treaty.”