The death of nations through the health of nations.
Essential points which almost certainly will be violated by the international agreement:
WHO asked: “What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?”:
1. The treaty should not be approved by legislative powers, so that it remains elective, not constitutional, and does not reduce sovereignty of nations, provinces, municipalities: it should only involve free cooperation without any punishment, retaliation or withdrawal of funding, for failing to follow guidelines. No UN agency or entity has the right to override national, provincial or municipal norms, laws and regulations.
2. Human, personal and health rights begin at conception, defined, not at implantation, but when a cell, usually the result of the union of the sperm and egg, has the natural potential to develop into a human body: there’s no right to murder an innocent human being (procured abortion).
3. All parties should swear and defend the Hippocratic Oath, respecting life from conception to natural death, compromising to do no harm. This implies the explicit rejection of the culture of death: abortion, abortifacients, contraception, euthanasia, artificial insemination, pre-born research (n.b. embryonic stem cell research), psychedelic drugs, surrogacy, transitioning, etc. A pandemic or epidemic is no excuse to violate local norms or to promote the culture of death, ever.
4. Doctors and people have the right to conscientious objection. This includes the right to refuse to obey a norm or order commanding to do or abstain to do (action or omission), which can damage a person (like telling where is the closest abortion facility or about false abortion rights).
5. Personal doctors have the right to override any hospital or government protocol, even artificial intelligence. Governments should abstain from regulating (like asking for a prescription) and hindering the commercialization of non-deadly drugs (like ivermectin), even it means repurposing. Pharmacists have the right to reformulate and sell wherever they want, even exporting.
6. No entity can prevent a doctor from applying what he and his patient agreed as treatment. Practice of any medicine can’t be declared illegal. Any medical school/tradition could be placed under oversight, public warnings or recommendations, but can’t be censored nor forbidden, just because it doesn’t follow the Flexner report, like traditional African medicine, Hildegaardian medicine, etc. Large Randomized Control Trials have no better weight than the addition of trustworthy small clinical trials to similar numbers.
7. The right to informed consent must include all the available data (including crude numbers of adverse events in all provinces and countries) of benefits, side effects, contents, of all available treatments, compared to the benefit/risk of un-treatment. People have the right to biometric, genetic and neuro integrity, which can never be tampered without informed consent, including stealth insertion of nano-chips.
8. People have the right to reject any treatment or health protocol and to choose the ones they want. Recognition of the right to refuse vaccines, foods and beverages tainted with abortion in either production or quality control using cell lines from aborted or dissected living human beings.
9. The international law age of consent is 21, unless mental disability. Parental rights rule until 21 years of age of their sons, unless exceptional circumstances. Parents have the right to educate their children according to their own ideology and religion, with the State providing supplementary aid, under the principle of subsidiarity. Until 21 minors have no right to choose treatments or procedures which could have long-lasting impact in their lives, like abortion or sex-change. The best interests of the child include the right of every human being to be born within heterosexual marriage, ideally for life and opened to life.
10. The anti-science and ideological program named Comprehensive Sexuality Education violates sexual and reproductive health and rights. Sexual health includes the right of virgin faithful marriage, which avoids Sexually Transmitted Diseases, being all other sexual behaviour unhealthy. Sexual rights include not being nudged or forced to nudity, immodesty, sexual acts, except procreation within marriage, and the right to innocence. Reproductive rights, exclude anything which hinders fecundity (abortion, abortifacients, contraception, overpopulation ideology, etc.).
11. Death is defined by both brain and cardio-pulmonary inactivity for at least than 3 hours, or at least 24 hours under suitable cold or hibernating conditions.
12. In order to avoid manipulation, health definitions should not be fuzzy and should not include risk or potential. Quarantines can’t be based on models.
13. The treaty should define a pandemic or epidemic with transmissible-pathogen proven deaths (especially autopsies) and ratio of deaths to hospitalizations (not testing, not cases, not death risk, but linkable deaths) within a municipality, not provinces or nations, involving an increase of at least 20% compared to the mean of the previous 5 years.
14. Human rights and civil liberties are inalienable and cannot be violated with the excuse of a sanitary measure like a lock down, quarantine, health passes, etc. Health measures can’t violate the common good principle, for example, by tolerating or promoting different degrees of slavery (abortion, surrogacy, prostitution, pornography, addictions), perversion (sexual intercourse outside real lifelong lifeopen marriage), etc.
15. Sanitary measures require approval by local municipal legislative powers.
16. Biometric, vaccination, treatment or lab analysis is personal and confidential data. It is discriminatory to ask or control for it, under any circumstance. It should never be laced to digital ID or currency.
17. No treatment, like vaccines, should be compulsory, ever.
18. To grant or reduce rights, to give incentives or disincentives, should never be tied to treatments or vaccination. Worse case, the vaccinated can never be recognized more rights than the recovered.
19. Every person has the right to feeding and hydration, even intravenously.
20. Presumed donor rules violate the right to supervision by relatives and promotes organ harvesting, which is immoral.
21. Codex alimentarious should reflect food rights, which include the right to refuse additives, chimeras or transgenics, which should never be compulsory and should be visibly labelled, and the right to raise and eat animals, plant, hunt, fish or collect in the wilderness. Animals don’t have human rights, even if added human organs or tissue.
22. Health measures can’t be tied to personal or regional carbon footprint. Climate change doesn’t correlate to human carbon emissions.  Atmospheric CO2 correlates with temperature in interglacial periods but the other way round: solar activity is the main driver of temperature, CO2 lags rise in temperature proving rising temperatures result in the release of more CO2 from the oceans. There’s certainly anthropogenic climate change, but caused on purpose, through geo-engineering. 
Words can murder. With pro-abortion laws and rules, we learned about lethal wording and reinterpretation. 
By changing important definitions the WHO and health agencies murdered millions and maimed billions:
· Redefintition of conception as the moment of implantation
· Redefinition of abortion as interruption of pregnancy
· Redefintition of person, not from a conception cell, but after an x weeks pregnancy or after birth.
· Redefitition of death, separating brain death from cardio-pulmonary, not taking into account resuscitation technology and techniques, which extend the recoverability threshold.
What’s the definition of a pandemic? Since 1999, WHO always had clear basis for a definition but refused to make one:
· “Definition of new: a subtype that has not circulated in humans for at least several decades and to which the great majority of the human population therefore lacks immunity.
· At unpredictable intervals, however, novel influenza viruses emerge with a key surface antigen (the haemagglutinin) of a totally different sub-type from strains circulating the year before. This phenomenon is called “antigenic shift”. If such viruses have the potential to spread readily from person-to-person, then more widespread and severe epidemics may occur, usually to a similar extent in every country within a few months to a year, resulting in a pandemic.
· The pandemic will be declared when the new virus sub-type has been shown to cause several outbreaks in at least one country, and to have spread to other countries, with consistent disease patterns indicating that serious morbidity and mortality is likely in at least one segment of the population.” 
World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic influenza guidelines, 1999–2009
By January 2003 WHO had the following description of pandemic:
“An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” 
By 28 Dec 2008, it had removed the requirement of several and simultaneous epidemics: “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” 
In order to be able to declare the planned swine fake pandemic one month later, on 4 May 2009, it changed to a completely lax and subjective description:
“A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal. A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.” 
By dropping “the requirement for a new sub-type with a simple reassortant virus meaning that many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza. If the WHO guidelines in effect at the time that the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus was identified in the USA in April 2009 then it would never have been declared a pandemic as it was not a new sub-type, was not causing enormous numbers of deaths and illness, and a significant number of people had already been exposed to an immunogenically similar virus. The fact that only one vaccination was required for all but young children is another sign that this was not an immunogenically novel virus.” 
The term “requirement” implies a definition, yet in 2010 WHO said it had confused a description with a definition. 
3 Sept 2011, WHO reverted to the second description (without the “several simultaneous” requirement): “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” 
30 Jan 2020, WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
11 Mar 2020, WHO declared the COVID pandemic without any definition of the term.  WHO had declared that COVID was novel virus, even if disproven by the patent trail and by the existence of previous cross-immunity. The pandemic was declared with its old fuzzy definition.
Also, WHO changed the definition of herd immunity to justify compulsory unneeded injuring experimental vaccination: 
9 Jun 2020 “Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” 
15 Oct 2020 “Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.” 
Tedros’ new definition given on Oct 13,2020 and published by WHO on 15 Oct 2020:
WHO: “Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.
Science: The unexposed population wasn’t protected even if the threshold of 300% was achieved (triple dose).
WHO: Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Science: Omicron proved that the most effective way to real herd immunity was exposing to the virus, not vaccination.
WHO: Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but — crucially — vaccines work without making us sick.
Science: Haccines worked by making people sick, by cell hacking to fill people non-stop with spike protein, the very protein making people sick from COVID. That was the main intended effect, yet misguidingly called “side effect” or adverse reaction.
WHO: Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing it on, breaking any chains of transmission.
Science: Vaccinated people were not protected from getting the disease and passing it on, incapable of breaking any chains of transmission. On the contrary, their oral viral load was higher and so the contagion, considering no mucosal immunoglobulin A is achieved by injected vaccination.
The new anti-science Orwellian definition said that the only ethical way to achieve herd immunity was through vaccination. Defying the most basic concept of immunology, the WHO excluded natural immunity, even if achieved through a mild disease, cross-immunity or even medical immunity where a severe disease becomes mild thanks to medicines, like ivermectin. With ivermectin, there was no need to vaccinate at all, even less with experimental ones. The manipulation of definitions seeks perpetual semestrial vaccination mixing COVID with the flu shot.
Another topic, is that WHO and health agencies used the false concept of healthy asymptomatic to push lock-downs. Also, they redefined the term vaccinated as synonym for fully vaccinated with 2, 3 or even more boosters, also excluding a 14 day or longer period for counting adverse events, even if most side effects occur in such timeframe.
Conclusion, WHO’s definitions are ammunition, a semantic genocide. Fuzzy definitions are deliberately vague to allow manipulation, costing millions of lives. They are political, not medical, not scientific, turning the WHO into a a mass murder organization.
Planned history of the WHO
By 1946, it was clear that the World Health Organization was intended from inception by the powers that be, to be used as an instrument of global domination and social engineering, not just health:
1. It was (and still is) the only UN organization with a legally binding Constitution.
2. The Preamble of the World Health Organization Constitution is self-evident about a fuzzy idea of health, easy to be stretched over all aspects of life: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being… in a changing total environment… “
It is obvious that the environment impacts health (e.g. arsenic in water), but the problem here is the use of subjective imprecise standards to define environmental risks and hazards, just like climate change.
3. The Constitution included many activities not directly related to basic health (art.2), like: (h) prevention of accidental injuries, (i) nutrition, housing, sanitation, recreation, economic or working conditions and other aspects of environmental hygiene, (l) maternal and child health and welfare and to foster the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment, (m) mental health, especially those affecting the harmony of human relations, (o) standards of teaching and training, (p) social security, (r) developing an informed public opinion …
4. Art. 21 was preparing legal health regulations we saw with COVID19:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices (note: they can redefine diseases, invent new ones, and force their inclusion as causes of death even if they weren’t primary causes);
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use (note: false positive PCR tests);
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce (note: they can define that a vaccine is safe and effective when it’s not, they can define product like ivermectin as dangerous and ineffective when it’s not);
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce (note: they could label meat as a biological hazard because of cattle carbon emissions).
5. Art 22 is self-explanatory:
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice. 
In 1978, the joint WHO and UNICEF International Conference at Alma-Ata adopted a Declaration on Primary Health Care (for them,) as a key to achieving ‘‘Health for All by the Year 2000’’. 134 governments agreed “not only to advance the health of their own people but to support WHO’s cooperative initiatives to advance the health of all the people in the world.”  Alma-Ata was the cornerstone for a global health care system: the signing countries couldn’t have imagined that it would be based on contraception, abortifacients, abortion, graphened medicines and syringes, maiming/lethal vaccination/haccination and nano-routers.
In 1980, the freemasons engraved in stone a world population target of only 500 million: presumably there’s an excess of 7 billion to be vanished. 
The 2005 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was implemented to reduce and hide the impact of the lethal clots caused by birth control pills and to prepare the legal framework to destroy the sovereignty of nations through an international treaty: “Article 57 of the IHR (International Health Regulations) expressly states that its Parties may conclude special treaties or arrangements in order to facilitate the implementation of the IHR.” They had to wait until the COVID perfect storm because all the previous PLANdemics failed to cause enough panic to accept subjecting sovereignty to an omnipotent WHO. 
24 May 2011, at the 64th World Health Assembly, the pandemic influenza preparedness and response (PIP) framework was adopted,  “built on 3 fundamental pillars: virus sharing, benefit sharing and governance.. . overseen by the World Health Assembly, the Director-General and the independent Advisory Group…”  to peddle the useless and injuring but very profitable flu vaccines. It wasn’t a legal instrument but a compulsory precedent.
By 2017, WHO made very clear that it intended to control all aspects of the political, social and economic life through the broadest definition of health, with an impressive list including all fields of human behaviour (economics, agricultural production, industry, environment, etc.). 
An example of the impact of fuzzy health is the inclusion of self-perceived subjective psychological and social health, which is used to impose abortion on demand, under the excuse of the exception of mother’s health (not a certain risk to her life but just fuzzy health).
By mid 2020 most countries had emergency presidential decrees/bills or even laws tying emergency response to the WHO declaration of pandemic, which could be later used as a binding framework for future outbreaks.
The 2020 Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) report, ‘A World In Disorder’, called for negotiations on an international framework agreement for health emergency preparedness and response.
18 Mar 2021 WHO presented a plan for a “stronger WHO” with “Governance and oversight mechanisms” under “a legally-binding international framework. Making that commitment part of international law.”
There’s absolutely no need for a legal binding framework for global submission in cross-border issues, as proven by so many international bodies based on cooperation, that range from atomic energy to Interpol. 
“A potential framework convention could help promote an all-of-government, whole-of society, one-health and sustainable approach to pandemic preparedness.” The word “sustainable” is a Trojan concept for deliberate recession, depopulation and decarbonisation.
“A treaty would be negotiated by the delegations of the 194 Member States of WHO, and the final decision to adopt it would rest with them.” Note: once the treaty is approved by each Congress, it has Constitutional level, which means placing the authority of WHO over “all-of-government”.
WHO will have power to override governments and ministries of health to enforce measures like:
· “Surveillance systems hard to cope with high force of infection ... Case and cluster investigations, contact tracing and supported quarantine of contacts remain insufficient in most countries.”
· Censorship, persecution and propaganda under the excuse of “The infodemic of misinformation and disinformation, and a lack of access to credible information continue to shape perceptions …“
· “Comprehensive preparedness and emergency response systems to protect populations from disease outbreaks, natural and human-made disasters, armed conflict, and other hazards …” This means WHO could intervene with its supreme authority under any excuse.
30 Mar 2021, the dominated dominant media echoed the announcement for the plan for an “international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response”, “rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organization”, establishing “International Health Regulations”, under “the principle of health for all”  where nations give up their sovereignty to the WHO, whenever it whims a fake pandemic, epidemic or outbreak declaration, under fuzzy definitions of emergencies by “potential risk”. “Health for all” means death for all.
No human activity will escape WHO’s power grab: including “the unsustainable food production and livestock breeding, wildlife trading, resource-intensive lifestyles and consumption, destruction of ecosystems, antimicrobial resistance and soaring figures of cancer…”
We could naturally conclude that the WHO’s fuzzy treaty would include:
· Fake diagnostics like PCRs (even if with 50% false positives)
· Global Digital ID and health passport with vaccination history and PCRs
· Closing of borders
· Health concentration camps
· General or targeted lock downs
· Home confinement of the asymptomatic, even if not contagious and not ill
· Forced experimental lethal treatments and haccination
· Check points
· Forced scanning to access transportation, stores, schools, companies, churches, etc.
· Culling or prohibition of livestock breeding, under the guise of “a ‘One Health’ approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet.”
· “A ban on wildlife markets” and almost certainly, hunting.
“Health equity”, means that citizens from rich countries like the USA and Europe will be forced to pay for a universal (depopulation) basic health coverage, targeting the poorer more prolific regions with contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, haccines and sex change. 
“Pandemic preparedness needs global leadership for a global health system...” lists of 28 signees of the document, puppets of the New World Order:
Carlos Alvarado Quesada
J. V. Bainimarama
António Luís Santos da Costa
Trinidad and Tobago
World Health Organization
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
It’s no coincidence that most of those countries were the most stringent, and were those which banned the 30 cures for COVID. 
31 May 2021, the 74th World Health Assembly (WHASS) decided a “Special session of the World Health Assembly to consider developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response.” 
Reports were prepared by:
· Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPR) , just as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , an anti-science NGO, dependent to Director-General (Tedros Ghebreyesus) in response to the World Health Assembly resolution 73.1 (May 2020). 
· Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) during the COVID-19 Response, which begun on 8 Sep 2020 “reporting to the Director-General and WHO Governing Bodies to review the functioning of the IHR during the COVID-19 response and the status of implementation of the relevant recommendations of previous IHR Review Committees.” 
Both were ideologically dependent political bodies. Obviously, they never criticized WHO’s lethal recommendations, which costed thousands of lives and trillions of dollars  and they couldn’t come up with a single early treatment solution in spite of the overwhelmingly scientific literature.  A “democratic” way to prepare a global constitution: no science, no health, no international debate, no vote from member states.
29 Sep 2021, a guide for the treaty, stated: “A Conference of the Parties (COP) is the common type of governing body in most multilateral treaties. Matters commonly considered at an early stage are, interalia: adoption of the Rules and Procedure and the financial rules of the COP; decision on budget cycle and adoption of the first budget; outlining areas and timelines of potential protocols, guidelines and similar instruments, particularly in the case of a framework convention; establishing a system of national implementation reports; criteria and arrangement for the participation of observers… a permanent secretariat.” The document proves the strategy of legal entanglement with several international treaties like Nagoya: treaty after treaty, inadvertently, it will be harder to untie the legal knots. 
The signing countries are usually unaware of the full legal implications and ramifications, especially when terms are stripped from their common understanding. For example, sexual reproductive rights are never understood towards promoting reproduction but just the opposite, they are un-reproductive rights: a legal coup by stealth redefinition, backed by puppet national Supreme Courts. 
28 Nov 2021, America, Europe, Africa and dozens of countries proposed the “Establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” 
Everything had been prepared before even meeting!
1 Dec 2021, at the second extraordinary session since it was founded in 1948, the World Health Assembly of 194 countries unanimously adopted a decision titled “The World Together”  establishing the INB to draft and negotiate the contents of the pandemic treaty under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, which gives the World Health Assembly, with a two-third majority, the authority to adopt conventions about health. 
The Pandemic Preparedness Agreement.will focus on “incoherent policymaking by member states and lack of international cooperation.”  This means, they will coerce countries proving their PLANdemic measures, like Sweden, free from lock-downs.
Tedros’ closing speech  made very clear that WHO’s global governance will be based on “fuzzy risk”, not scientific evidence: having the ability to close countries with the excuse of a perceived risk, not real deaths, not even adapting measures to the epidemiological status of each country, province or city. For instance, he declared that Omicron “underlines how perilous… our situation is… Indeed, Omicron demonstrates just why the world needs a new accord on pandemics.” Considering Omicron was already proven to be a mild variant, ideal for achieving natural immunity, it demonstrates just why the world doesn’t need this accord based on a blank check.  The pandemic treaty is not a backdoor to global governance but the front door to global tyranny.
24 Feb 2022, the INB had its first meeting, scheduling the draft discussion for a second meeting on 1 Aug 2022.
· Intermittent public hearings, only with ideological NGOs funded by the globalists.
· 2023 a progress report to be presented to the 76th World Health Assembly.
· 2024 its outcome to be presented for consideration to the 77th World Health Assembly (probably in May).
History proves that freemasons, publish their goals only if they have low risk of failure, by previously ensuring enough pre-corrupted authorities. Once they set their goals, they move swiftly: the WHO Constitution was ready in only 5 months (Feb - Jul 1946).
Conclusion, WHO could lock down any country or local government by simply inventing a health threat, a very powerful domination tool. If anything, COVID19 proved how the gullible public tolerates draconian measures.
Two prior conditions are needed:
1. indoctrination by dominant media
2. censorship of dissident voices
That changed for the worse: after these two years, by April 2022, people were still yielding even to harmful child haccination and masking.
World Death Organization
In the 60s, WHO was already promoting “modern” contraceptive methods, aligning with the culture of death. 
It was the turning point where the World Health Organization became the World Death Organization.
In the 70s it was evident that the legalization of abortion increased maternal mortality: 
(1) Decriminalization or legalization of any crime naturally increases the total yearly number of such crime, which tends to rise exponentially, until reaching full capacity.
(2) Even legal abortion implies death risks to the mother.
(3) That risk, multiplied by the absolute increase of (1), implies an exponential rise in maternal deaths, related to abortion complications.
(4) After the initial period of demand absorption equal to the previous hidden "dirty" illegal abortions (a couple of years), the total number of maternal deaths starts rising non-stop, if accounted properly, by including "all causes of deaths", which hides under-reported abortion related deaths, for instance Do-It-Yourself medical abortion.
Source: www.Facebook.com/Hikmat Hanna
In 2003, the WHO published its first abortion guidance, updated for the worse in 2012  and 2022 . Medicine is about saving lives, not murdering them, yet murdering a living human being is considered health or even healthy. The right to life, was changed for the right to murder. Under which rational justice is an innocent human being presumed guilty and condemned to death row unless the mother decides otherwise? The same as we ask how people could tolerate slavery, historians of 2040 will wonder in awe: “how could they have trusted serial-killer authorities promoting the abortion mass murder?”
8 Mar 2022, on Women’s day, WHO updated the 2012 guidelines to help countries deliver unrestricted “universally accessible” abortion, while hiding mothers’ deaths due to its supposedly safe guidelines. And recommending do-it-yourself abortions, i.e. “self-administration of (haemorrhaging) abortion-inducing drugs without the direct supervision of a doctor” especially “in countries where abortion is illegal or restricted.” 
From the systematic genocide of abortion, they moved on to the 7 COVID genocides: 
1. Engineering and releasing of the infertilizing, handicapping and lethal virus.
2. Maximizing spread (delaying alerts with open borders, forbidding open air activities, cloth masks, lock downs, vaccination).
3. Lethal recommendations (the above plus, testing with carcinogen swabs instead of spit, banning autopsies, pre-term delivery/c-sections, mother-baby separation).
4. Censoring, defunding and persecuting effective treatments.
5. Unneeded deadly treatments (ventilation, Remdesivir).
6. Infertilizing, handicapping and lethal vaccines and haccines (especially during pregnancy, breastfeeding and childhood).
7. Tech-attacks: graphenation of haccines, swabs, food and beverages, EMF blasts from satellites, towers and phones, etc.
The international treaty gives WHO the power to force countries to adjust their laws and comply not only with the right to abort but all sorts of new rights which are wrongs. For instance, WHO will attempt to enforce abortion denying conscientious objection, up to 9 months of gestation, in all signing countries, under the guise of:
· Sustainability: “Universal access to sexual and reproductive health is essential not only to achieve sustainable development but also to ensure that this new framework speaks to the needs and aspirations of people around the world and leads to realisation of their health and human rights.” The essence of UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is sustainability, which means population control through any means possible. 
· Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR): “encompass efforts to eliminate preventable maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, to ensure quality sexual and reproductive health services, including contraceptive services, and to address sexually transmitted infections (STI) and cervical cancer, violence against women and girls, and sexual and reproductive health needs of adolescents.”  According to their narrative, legal abortion would prevent maternal deaths by reducing dirty clandestine abortions. Also, mandatory infertilizing and handicapping HPV vaccines would prevent cervical cancer.
· Sexually Transmitted Infections: a fake declaration of an STI epidemic (like Zika) could grant WHO the power to mandate tax funded distribution of condoms, legalization of prostitution (sexual workers’ rights), anti-science “Comprehensive Sexuality Education”, which achieves exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to avoid: more gender confusion (gender identity disorder), psychological disorders, promiscuity, porn, violence against women, rape, STIs, sickness (n.b. anal sex), unplanned pregnancies and abortions. 
· Violence against women and girls: for them, denying abortion “rights” means violence against women and girls, where “girls” includes the right of a 10 year old girl to abort without parental consent.
· “Gender Equality lies at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.  For them it means tax funded depopulation through:
o Contraception, abortifacients and abortion, because women and girls should have equal right to men and boys, to enjoy sex without the possibility of unwanted child bearing, which would violate the right to study or work.
o The right to castration and genital mutilation of boys and girls without parental consent with the constant push of CSE. Diversity and gender equality are understood as 100+ self-perceived gender diversity and equality of men and women in the sense of trans-interchangeability.
With the cooperation of national traitors they’ll try to pull off a supra-constitutional right to abortion, even if in most countries any treaty that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void and so are signatures of authorities violating the Constitution which are obliged to uphold it (e.g. USA Marbury vs Madison),
Concluding, unless people put pressure on their representatives, vote accordingly and warn everybody about this threat, we are headed towards the first global health tyranny in human history by the World Death Organization, a “sick-tatorship” disguised as sani-tatorship, leading the culture of death.
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/CaaG-2022.pdf http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ http://climateconferences.heartland.org/ https://climateataglance.com/ https://climaterealism.com/
http://cato.org https://www.netzerowatch.com/ https://clintel.org/
Schmidt, Charles W., A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism, 1 Dec 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 118, No. 12
 Nazar, F. Scientific proof of the PLANdemic, from 1910 to the future, 1 Apr 2022, International COVID Summit Paris, France.
 Doshi, Peter. The elusive definition of pandemic influenza. Round table. Definition of pandemic influenza. 2011 Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89(7), 532–538. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127275/#R10 https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.086173
 Law, Ron. WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”. Rapid response. 04 Jun 2010 BMJ 340 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2912
"Table 3: WHO Pandemic Phase Descriptions and Main Actions by Phase". https://web.archive.org/web/20200421161230/https:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143061/
National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 23 April 2020.Table/Figure 3 is from Chapter 4 of (2009). (WHO chart in April 2020). https://web.archive.org/web/20200401180621/https:/www.who.int/influenza/resources/documents/pandemic_phase_descriptions_and_actions.pdf
 Lowes R. WHO says failure to disclose conflicts of pandemic advisors an “oversight”. 8 Jun 2010. Available from: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723191
 Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic. 19 Mar 2020 Acta bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis, 91(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397
 “Amendments adopted by the Twenty-sixth, Twenty-ninth, Thirty-ninth and Fifty-first World Health Assemblies (resolutions WHA26.37, WHA29.38, WHA39.6 and WHA51.23) came into force on 3 Feb 1977, 20 Jan 1984, 11 Jul 1994 and 15 Sep 2005 respectively.” Yet, the quote is in the original version: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1948/04/19480407%2010-51%20PM/Ch_IX_01p.pdf
 https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
 Grad, Frank P. (2002). The Preamble of the Constitution of the World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80 (12), 981 - 984. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/268691
 Nazar, Federico. Scientific proof of the genocidal PLANdemic with 1000 peer reviewed references, 2022. Preprint Academia.edu
 WHO, A potential framework convention for pandemic preparedness and response, 18 Mar 2021,Member States Briefing.
 Established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, has no real power. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/court
On the other hand, through the 1998 Rome Statute signed by 123 countries (as of 2022), the 2002 International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is supranational and infringes sovereignty (thereby refused by 42 countries) but it is limited to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression: it refused to consider abortion as genocide, in spite it matches the definition in the Rome Statute. It’s no surprise it also rejected the six COVID genocides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
 WHO, COVID-19 shows why united action is needed for more robust international health architecture, 30 Mar 2021, Op-ed commentary https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed---covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture
WHO, Global leaders unite in urgent call for international pandemic treaty. 30 Mar 2021, News.
 IPPR, COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic, May 2021
 Nikogosian H, Kickbusch I, et al. A guide to a pandemic treaty. Things you must know to help you make a decision on a pandemic treaty. 29 Set 2021 Global Health Centre of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva), p.39
 Nazar, F. Justice Ginsburg: will History miss her? The American abortion coup. 28 Set 2020. Catholic365.com
 WHO, The World Together: Establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating body to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. 28 Nov 2021 World Health Assembly, Second special session SSA2/CONF./1Rev.1 Provisional agenda item 2 https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHASSA2/SSA2_CONF1Rev1-en.pdf
Proposed by: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Georgia, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Member States of the African Group and of the European Union, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, UK, USA, Uruguay and Vanuatu.
 WHO, The World Together: Establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating body to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. 1 Dec 2021 World Health Assembly, Second special session SSA2(5) Agenda item 2
 WHO, World Health Assembly agrees to launch process to develop historic global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.1 Dec 2021 Geneva https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-world-health-assembly-agrees-to-launch-process-to-develop-historic-global-accord-on-pandemic-prevention-preparedness-and-response
 Verkerk, Rob, The WHO pandemic treaty: a backdoor to global governance? 23 Feb 2022 Alliance for Natural Health International
 Cueto M, Brown T, Fee E. The Transition from “Family Planning” to “Sexual and Reproductive Rights”. In The World Health Organization: A History (Global Health Histories, pp. 146-169). 1 Apr 2019 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108692878.007
Zahra A. & Strudwick, the role of the World Health Organization in health related aspects of family planning. International Journal of Health Services Vol. 3, No. 4, Special Issue: POPULATION GROWTH IN INTERNATIONAL PRESPECTIVE (fall 1973), pp. 701-707 (7 pages) Published By: Sage Publications, Inc. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45132156
 Koch, E., Chireau, M., et al. Abortion legislation, maternal healthcare, fertility, female literacy, sanitation, violence against women and maternal deaths: a natural experiment in 32 Mexican states. 2015 BMJ open, 5(2), e006013.
Koch, Elard. The epidemiology of abortion and its prevention in Chile. 2015 Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 30, Number 1, 71–85
Koch, E., Thorp, J., et al. Women's education level, maternal health facilities, abortion legislation and maternal deaths: a natural experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007. 2012 PloS one, 7(5), e36613. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036613 translation of:
Koch, E. Impact of Reproductive Laws on Maternal Mortality: The Chilean Natural Experiment. 2013 Dublin International Symposium on Maternal Health. Institute of Molecular Epidemiology (MELISA), Center of Embryonic Medicine and Maternal Health. The Linacre Quarterly 80 (2), 151–160 https://doi.org/10.1179/0024363913Z.00000000022
 WHO human reproduction programme. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. Second edition. 2012 ISBN: 978 92 4 154843 4 https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en/
Van Look, P. F., & Cottingham, J. The World Health Organization's safe abortion guidance document. 14 Feb 2013 American journal of public health, 103(4), 593–596. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301204
WHO Lerberghe W, Manuel A, Matthews Z, Wolfeim C: The World Health Report 2005, Overview. Make every mother and child count. 2005 Geneva.
WHO Ahman E, Shah I. Unsafe abortion. Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2008. Geneva.
Shah I, Ahman E. Unsafe abortion in 2008: global and regional levels and trends. 2010 Reprod Health Matters, 18:90-101.
 WHO Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research. WHO issues new guidelines on abortion to help deliver lifesaving care. 9 Mar 2022 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113612
WHO. Abortion care guideline. 8 Mar 2022 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483
 Fragosa, Alexis I. The WHO pushes “de-medicalization” of abortion in updated self-care guidelines, 22 Jul 2021
 Oas, Rebecca. No Matter the Question, Contraception’s the Answer. 12 Jul 2018
 World Health Organization, Sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global development, health, and human rights priority. July 2014 https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/gender_rights/srh-rights-comment/en/
Temmerman M., Khosla R. Say L., Sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global development, health, and human rights priority. 17 Jul 2014. The Lancet, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61190-9
 http://StopCSE.com https://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org
 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Gender Equality as an Accelerator for Achieving the SDGs. 4 Feb 2019 Research/Discussion papers. Topics: Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals, Gender equality, Sustainable development, Poverty reduction and inequality, Inclusive growth. https://www.undp.org/publications/gender-equality-accelerator-achieving-sdgs