Trying to make sense of what’s unfolding in Geneva this week with the WHO Pandemic Agreement vote doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. If these folks can’t run a transparent process, how can they manage a pandemic — let alone a self-propelling hamster on a wheel?
And why on earth was the Republic of Korea speaking for Australia?
The process has been muddy at best — perhaps deliberately so. The more opaque the process, the harder it is for the public to follow. And that suits some just fine.

Who’s the WHO? The World Health Organization (WHO) is the health arm of the UN, responsible for managing global health crises, including declaring pandemics. In theory, it represents its 194 member states through the WorldHealth Assembly.
In practice, the WHO now receives most of its funding from private entities, with around 25% coming from pharmaceutical companies and their associated foundations. If you’re wondering whether that’s a conflict of interest… it is.

Pharma profits when the WHO declares pandemics and recommends pharmaceutical solutions. That’s not conspiracy, that’s commercial reality.
What’s the WHO up to? Since COVID-19, the WHO has been driving a new Pandemic Agreement, claiming it’s needed due to a supposed “catastrophic failure of international solidarity and equity.”
Translation: the WHO wants more power, more control, and more funding — via a legally binding treaty that centralises pandemic response under global oversight.
They say it will improve “Pandemic Prevention,Preparedness, and Response (PPPR),” and promote:
- Better surveillance (read: testing, tracing, tracking — of people, animals, even sewage),
- Faster declarations of pandemics (even without consensus),
- Fairer access to vaccines and treatments (especially along “gender equity”lines).

But read the fine print — then read between the lines. These aren’t health measures; they’re control mechanisms.
So what just happened inGeneva? On Monday, the World Health Assembly (WHA) voted on a Resolution to adopt the Pandemic Agreement — ahead of a final discussion on Tuesday.

Here’s where it gets murky.
The vote passed with only 124 nations voting in favour. 11 countries abstained. Nearly 60 either didn’t show up, weren’t eligible, or didn’t vote. With 193 active WHO members (excluding the US, which pulled out under Trump), a two-thirds majority would require129 votes.
If more countries had abstained or opposed, the resolution wouldn’t have passed.
Abstaining nations included: Bulgaria, Iran, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, and three unidentified others.
Then, on Tuesday, the WHO rushed to declare the agreement adopted. But was it legally adopted? Was the vote valid? And why is no-one asking?

The Pandemic Agreement Isn’t Finished! Yes — they voted to adopt an agreement that isn’t even complete.
The most controversial part — the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System — hasn’t been drafted. Yet this mechanism is central to the whole agreement.
Here’s how PABS works:
1. Countries constantly search for viruses and pathogens (including in animals and the environment),
2. They send samples to WHO labs,
3. The WHO stores, studies and possibly patents them,
4. The WHO declares pandemics,
5. The WHO recommends treatments,
6. And countries like Australia follow.

A self-reinforcing loop of surveillance, control, and pharmaceutical dependency. All under one unelected, unaccountable global agency.

Why don’t we trust them? Because the WHO failed during COVID:
- It backflipped on advice and ignored evidence-based measures,
- It amplified harmful policies and suppressed dissent,
- It ran a politically compromised investigation into COVID’s origins,
- It helped bury the lab leak theory, which is now widely accepted as credible.

And now, it's asking us to hand over even more power?
Don’t worry, “It won’t affect sovereignty” — they claimThe WHO says:
“Nothing in the Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as giving the WHO authority to mandate domestic laws, lockdowns, or vaccine mandates…”
Sounds comforting, until you realise the real obligations lie in the updated International Health Regulations (IHR). And unless Australia formally rejects them by 19 July 2025, they become binding from 19 September 2025.
So what now? The Pandemic Agreement can’t be signed by any member nation until the PABS is completed, that’s expected to take another year.
We still have time to raise awareness and ensure our politicians don’t sleepwalk us into a system where our health policies are set off shore, our resources are shared globally, and our response to future pandemics is dictated by unelected bureaucrats — many with financial ties to those who stand to benefit most.
We’re not becoming safer. We’re becoming sicker, poorer, and more surveilled — all in the name of “preparedness.”

We assure you, under these Pandemic Treaties: we are more at risk of human nature than Mother Nature!