Sign IOJ Comment To HHS Stop Pandemic Treaty

Sign IOJ's Comment To HHS
Re: Pandemic Treaty

Written Comment Re: Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments in the WHO Pandemic Agreement

Greetings

Dear HHS, I am writing after the deadline due to the importance and request you make an appointment to have an informal hearing with Interest of Justice and their Global Science Integrity Task Force and Anti Corruption Unit regarding their concerns of WHO’s lack of scientific integrity in diagnostics, preventatives and treatments which may be causing iatrogenic harm with little or no real benefit, among other issues in the letter below.

IOJ Letter to HHS:
Please find IOJ’s comments on any and all issues raised by the negotiating text, including potential vehicles and means for implementation of commitments to which the U.S. may subscribe.

First, The States are overly burdened by the two processes of IHR Amendments and Pandemic Treaty at same time. Its too rushed and leaves us accountability CSO\'s no time for due process to protest or negotiate better text.

Second, The Pandemic Treaty is unnecessary and we require a hearing to explain in great detail why.

Third, There are serious issues of WHO serious breaches of international obligations and unanswered criminal charges in WHO ethics department that we keep raising to HHS OGAm which so far are not addressed. The issues in our particular case of a 2 year record of WHO malfeasance needs to be recognized and addressed because it is cause to force US top EXIT the WHO, not further fund and get in bed with the corrupt, decrepit and failing WHO.

Fourth, There are serious issues of absolute nullity of the text which mistakenly presumes the truth of climate emergency, despite the presumption of climate alarmism being based on material facts of climate change being man made that are still in dispute. The fraudulent nature of the UN based climate alarmism funding scam and alleged state obligations to fund the unproven intervention of a decarbonization experiment is cause for absolute nullity.

Fifth, The text calls mRNA a critical health product while its still experimental and long term effects are still unknown, but presumed catastrophic. This is worse than Nazi Germany. It’s criminal and we mean it, we are suing for delicts. Don’t you dare fund mRNA as a vaccine platform, it is not a vaccine, its gene therapy and unlawful experimentation on the human genome in violation of Nuremberg Code, given with no informed consent of identified risks or the experimental genome altering nature.

Sixth, The WHO has proffered many concepts and strategies for managing global health, almost all are scientifically unsound and cause more harm than good. We protest all potential vehicles and means for implementation of commitments to which the U.S. may subscribe. All involve the centralization of data in WHO as well as the way to hold States accountable. Its a globalist dream and a nation states nightmare.

Seventh, WHO and HHS are in serious breach of Scientific Integrity and the Pandemic Treaty would allow for censorship and bias, furthering political interference in scientific decision making by the way WHO is set up with sovereign immunity for crimes.

Eighth, in both WHO Pandemic treaty negotiations they failed to consider our speeches, in particular the request to conform to the requirements set forth in the Siracusa Principles. Instead the Siracusa Principles concepts are omitted and breaches of SIRACUSA PRINCIPLES 69(b) would be financed and called a “mRNA critical health product”. No it is not. Its an experiment that violates International law and Nuremberg Code.

Ninth, We need a hearing to discuss our extensive record against WHO and WHO Staff that they refuse to answer and HHS refuses to address each time we explain to you all. We have a serious need to be assisted to participate because we are censored, vulnerable, marginalized yet we are the PRIMARY stakeholders. Please help us and contact us to go through our unanswered charges against WHO and their bad science that is causing HHS and USA to be in serious breach of international obligations. We keep trying to warn you of legal issues that mandate we EXIT WHO, or at least wildly reform them (impossible) and we can prove unequivocally as a matter of science, law and ethics why US should not fund the UN or WHO agendas, and sadly we are not being considered while HHS barrels forward as a WHO champion, regardless of their delicts and causing of mass wasteful spending using the COVID–19 Tools-Accelerator (ACT–A).

To answer the direct questions they are below:

Article 9, Research and Development
HHS Q: What approaches or incentives might be provided to governments, research institutions, or the private sector to encourage participation of relevant stakeholders to, as proposed in the Negotiating Text, ‘‘accelerate innovative research and development, including community-led and cross sector collaboration, for addressing emerging and re-emerging pathogens with pandemic potential’’?

IOJ Input: IoJ has assembled an ad hoc Global Science Integrity Task Force which would be perfect for the job and to also make sure human rights mechanisms were in place if there were to be an up and coming pandemic. Please contact us to initiate this critical component of the pandemic preparedness and response agenda.

HHS Q: What voluntary steps could Research & Development (R&D) stakeholders take that would build capacities and promote more inclusive research collaborations and participation from basic science through advanced development and clinical research, addressing the global calls for equity and inclusion?

IOJ Input: Stop funding the UN-WHO-Pharma censoring of experts and be honorable for a change. Make it a law and enforce the Scientific Integrity Policy and WH Task Force Recommendations as enforceable upon HHS to include the “misfit” R&D dissenters basic science at the intersection of policy and science such as our Chief Scientist Dr. Yeadon (former VP Pfizer) who is testifying and will testify to HHS with concrete evidence that the covid vaccines are toxic by design and cant ever help, only hurt! Please do not ignore this! Help us be heard out on the details of why we think this is true.

HHS Q: What national policies might be developed that (as proposed in the Negotiating Text), ‘‘support the transparent, public sharing of clinical trial protocols and results conducted either within their territories or through partnerships with other Parties, such as through open access publications’’?

IOJ Input: The Nations should be having more public participation with it\'s citizens so they may discuss which policies they choose to abide by

HHS Q: What are respective pros and cons of, the following proposed language in the Negotiating Text: ‘‘in accordance with national laws and considering the extent of public funding provided, publish[ing] the terms of government funded research and development agreements for pandemic-related products, including information on:

IOJ Input: There are many pros to publishing the funding data, but many cons to funding the globalist WHO rather than strengthening HHS, nationalism and isolationism.

(a) research inputs, processes and outputs, including scientific publications and data repositories, with data shared and stored securely in alignment with findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability principles;

IOJ Input: Research data should be public, but not pathogen information.

(b) the pricing of end products, or pricing policies for end products;

IOJ Input:

(c) licensing to enable the development, manufacturing and distribution of pandemic-related products, especially in developing countries; and

IOJ Input: Licensing issues in law can be VERY problematic, and are the subject of lawsuits. These should be private agreements for procurement and never put a profitable and captured platform such as mRNA in a law as required obligation to fund.

(d) terms regarding affordable, equitable and timely access to pandemic-related products during a pandemic’’? In your view, are there alternative recommended actions or commitments that could be considered?

IOJ Input: Affordable medicines are always an added value in any emergency situation. Withholding or censoring information and or medicines which can be an alternative in situations is monopolistic and needs oversight in the UN Global Market place as well as the Emergency Use Listing

HHS Q: What is the appropriate role for WHO in facilitating the R&D process in areas focusing on infectious diseases?

IOJ Input: An appropriate role for WHO would be research and public hearings to debate their interpretations, but not binding recommendations. If binding (that would be a disaster) the WHO should be responsible for any damages.

HHS Q: Are there provisions that could reasonably be included in government funded research or advanced development agreements, or policies related to licensing of government owned and/or government-funded technology that would promote global access to pandemic-related products, without disincentivizing innovation or partnering with the U.S. government around research and development?

IOJ Input: All of this is the communist WHO\'s path to take over R&D and this will lead to US R&D being valueless, as WHO will insist US owes the world our government-funded technology as an \"obligation\". US should simply license the innovations and share by allowing low cost purchases of the development.

Article 10, Sustainable Production
HHS Q: What approaches or incentives might be used to encourage manufacturers and others ‘‘to grant, subject to any existing licensing restrictions, on mutually agreed terms, non-exclusive, royalty-free licenses to any manufacturers, particularly from developing countries, to use their intellectual property and other protected substances, products, technology, know-how, information and knowledge used in the process of pandemic-related product development and production, in particular for pre-pandemic and pandemic diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for use in agreed developing countries’’?

IOJ Input: Being most likely experimental, this allows an open door for Big Pharma and Big Donors to get away with human rights violations by incentivizing and possibly deceiving developing countries who do not have systems in place to safeguard human rights protections.

HHS Q: How helpful or harmful would the following proposed obligations for governments be for public health, business, and innovation interests generally:

‘‘(a) encourage research and development institutes and manufacturers, in particular those receiving significant public financing, to waive or manage, for a limited duration, royalties on the use of their technology for the production of pandemic-related products;

IOJ Input:

(b) promote the publication, by private rights holders, of the terms of licensing agreements or technology transfer agreements for pandemic related products; and

IOJ Input: This would be more transparent in the event of corruptive practices

(c) promote the voluntary licensing and transfer of technology and related know-how for pandemic-related products by private rights holders with established regional or global technology transfer hubs or other multilateral mechanisms or networks.’’

IOJ Input:

HHS Q: How can we work to promote a globally sustainable medical countermeasures (MCM) manufacturing system, including leveraging regional approaches to production and maintaining readiness of facilities between pandemic emergencies?

IOJ Input:

Article 11, Transfer of Technology and Know-How
HHS Q: What measures could be taken, or incentives provided, to ‘‘strengthen existing, and develop innovative, multilateral mechanisms [under WHO], including through the pooling of knowledge, intellectual property and data, that promote the transfer of technology and know-how for the production of pandemic-related products, on mutually agreed terms as appropriate, to manufacturers, particularly in developing countries’’?

IOJ Input:

HHS Q: What measures could be taken, or incentives provided, to ‘‘make available non-exclusive licensing of government owned technologies, on mutually agreed terms as appropriate, for the development and manufacturing of pandemic-related products, and publish the terms of these licenses’’?

IOJ Input:

HHS Q: In your view, is there a lack of transparency concerning information regarding pandemic-related products, their technological specifications, and manufacturing details? If so, could the establishment of a new mechanism at the WHO effectively address this lack of transparency?

IOJ Input: There is an extreme lack of transparency. There must be a new mechanism to force transparency and urgent mechanisms to ensure compliance from WHO. We ask HHS especially to stop the mutual confidentiality agreements which are used to hide adverse effects, change the WHO confidentiality rule which outrageously allows for crimes and breaches to be kept secret, and punish WHO in the pocketbook if they fail.

HHS Q: What net impacts, positive or negative, would you envision arising from commitments presently outlined in Article 11.3, including:

‘‘(a) commit to agree upon, within the framework of relevant institutions, time-bound waivers of intellectual property rights to accelerate or scale up the manufacturing of pandemic-related products to the extent necessary to increase the availability and adequacy of affordable pandemic-related products;
 	IOJ Input: Good idea. The problem is the choice of products to invest in needs better scientific basis and more safety testing prior to rolling out to masses.
 	(b) encourage all holders of patents related to the production of pandemic related products to waive or manage, as appropriate, for a limited duration, the payment of royalties by developing country manufacturers on the use, during the pandemic, of their technology for the production of pandemic-related products, and shall require, as appropriate, those that have received public financing for the development of pandemic-related products to do so; and
 	IOJ Input: Good idea. The problem is the choice of products to invest in needs better scientific basis and more safety testing prior to rolling out to masses.
 	(c) encourage manufacturers within its jurisdiction to share undisclosed information, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 39 of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm#:~:text=The%20TRIPS%20Agreement%20is%20a,own%20legal%20system%20and%20practice.">(TRIPS) Agreement</a>, with qualified third-party manufacturers when the withholding of such information prevents or hinders urgent manufacture by qualified third parties of a pharmaceutical product that is necessary to respond to the pandemic’’?
 	IOJ Input: Good idea. The problem is the choice of products to invest in needs better scientific basis and more safety testing prior to rolling out to masses.

Article 12, Access and Benefit Sharing
A key negotiating objective of the United States has been to ensure that all countries share pathogen samples and associated data, including genetic sequence data, from emerging outbreaks quickly and transparently to facilitate response efforts, including the rapid creation of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments.

IOJ Input: BAD IDEA. REALLY, REALLY BAD IDEA HHS. Call us for a hearing with experts on why.

HHS Q: What sample and data access impediments have you encountered in the past or what impediments would you envision based on the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System in the Negotiating Text that might thwart or delay research efforts?

IOJ Input:

HHS Q: Does implementation of <a href="https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/">Nagoya Protocol </a>requirements impede the rapid development or deployment of vaccines, diagnostic test, and treatments? Explain.

IOJ Input: Something should slow down this unethical warp speed non vaccine gene therapy experiments affecting DNA trainwreck.
 	How important is a commitment by negotiating parties to provide parties with the access to pathogen samples and data that are needed to contribute to rapid creation of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments?
 	IOJ Input: Not important because the very concept of \"rapid creation\" defies ethics, logic, reason and the unequivocal rules of science. Has HHS read their own Scientific Integrity Policy? You cant rush and be in compliance with Scientific Integrity. Slow down the rush for funding and creating emerging technology experiments as if they help. They don\'t. Sharing the alleged pathogen samples cant help anything because you truly cannot prepare quickly. The best bet is ordinary medicines but HHS is not interested in useful ordinary medicines, only crazy novel technology that is hugely profitable. This needs a hearing. Call us please and thank you.
 	Are alternative strategies for ‘‘access’’ to samples and data available and how do they compare in terms of effectiveness and efficiency?
 	IOJ Input: Yes. Its called ordinary treatments. Wasn\'t the covid [non]vaccine created in 2 hours without a virus sample - by downloading a synthetic sars cov 2 recipe from China? No real virus sample needed. The problem is the mRNA platform has the alternative to real virus samples and data but its fatally flawed and more dangerous than beneficial because it uses modeling and creates a new synthetic pathogen recipe that never existed and installed it into the vaccine deployment system.
 	How might such commitments impact researchers and institutions?
 	IOJ Input: Humanity should never commit to share pathogens, especially with WHO and China researchers who may use the pathogen in a dual use way which can be weaponized. It\'s a real concern not being discussed. We once again request a hearing on this with our experts who will explain why sharing pathogens is insane and reckless with little benefit, if any, much better than we can.

The Article 12 negotiating text envisions parties agreeing to set aside certain percentages of pandemic-related products (proposed in the current negotiating text as a m Depends on the product and situationinimum of 20%) and facilitating their exportability.

HHS Q: What, from your perspective, are the pros and cons of such a requirement?

IOJ Input: Its an arbitrary requirement

HHS Q: Would such a requirement advance or hinder rapid research and development efforts?

IOJ Input: Depends on the product and situation. Both ways are possible but being forced to export 20% is dictatorship from afar, socialism and anti American. What if USA needs that 20% we are forced to export?

The Article 12 negotiating text further envisions required monetary contributions from recipients of shared samples or data, including researchers and manufacturers, for privileges of access.

HHS Q: What in your view is the monetary value of access that would be provided in terms of an annual or percentage-based contribution from your organization?

IOJ Input: This is a recipe for major capture of the Health System and conflicts of interest. It also incentivizes the \"obligation\" for making States share data which could be used for dual use purposes. Its a disaster waiting to happen if we incentivize the sgaring of pathogens with pandemic potential. This really, really needs a hearing. Call us!

HHS Q: How would requiring monetary contributions from academic, government, or other nonprofit research institutions impact, positive or negative, research?

IOJ Input: This is a terrible socialist idea. Do not do it please. It would adversely impact the natural flow of science and corrupt it.

The Article 12 negotiating text specifies other benefits that should be considered for provision to developing countries, including ‘‘(i) encouraging manufacturers from developed countries to collaborate with manufacturers from developing countries . . . to transfer technology and know-how and strengthen capacities for the timely scale-up of production of pandemic related products; (ii) tiered-pricing or other cost-related arrangements, such as no loss/no profit loss arrangements, for purchase of pandemic-related products . . .; and (iii) encouraging of laboratories . . . to actively seek the participation of scientists from developing countries in scientific projects associated with research on WHO PABS Materials.’’

HHS Q: How helpful would these additional measures be in advancing the rapid creation and/or production scaleup of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments?

IOJ Input: Encouraging \"no loss/no profit loss\" is a bad idea. It would obviously be used as a way for companies to make really horrible products, because there is no incentive of loss to keep them honorable and striving for creating the best product.

HHS Q: What are the risks or potential negative impacts could come from including such provisions?

IOJ Input: Capture of the global R&D market with WHO pressuring all States, and even developing countries to conform to WHO\'s disputed science and help WHO PABS which is reckless and unnecessary and should be shut down in our opinion.

HHS Q: What incentives might be provided to stakeholders to encourage/assure participation in such voluntary measures?

IOJ Input: Incentives to participate is like a bribe and therefore not voluntary.

HHS Q: What provisions might companies, academic research institutions, and other industry stakeholders look for when assessing voluntary participation in such a proposed Access and Benefit Sharing system?

IOJ Input: This is crazy how much effort is being put into this PABS system. We are seriously asking for a hearing to debate the necessity, proportionality, reasonableness, legality and scientific basis, as well as risks for the PABS system.

HHS Q: What samples/data are needed the most and how could such a system improve access to needed resources?

IOJ Input: None. Stop playing God. We have top scientists who will explain why. Please give us a hearing and contact us prior to any decision making on this.

HHS Q: What provisions are missing that would incentivize broad participation in the system that Member States should consider?

IOJ Input: We suggest there is not a broad participation in the PABS program, and there is no program to incentivize wide use.
Article 13, Global Supply Chain and Logistics (SCL) Network
The WHO SCL Network proposed in Article 13 envisions performing a range of functions ordinarily left to individual governments, institutions, or organizations.

HHS Q: What functions of Access to COVID–19 Tools-Accelerator (ACT–A) should or should not be institutionalized?

IOJ Input: Lets talk about the invalidity of the WHO recommended masks, PCR tests and Covid-19 non vaccines. They are all wholly unscientific. WHO is still promoting PCR as a diagnostic which it is not. The COVID–19 Tools-Accelerator (ACT–A) is making a killing - pun intended - off covid [non]vaccines with negative efficacy as if it is a preventative or therapeutic. They are defrauding States as to science. Our expert Dr. Yeadon will testify the PCR test is not a diagnostic and creates 97-100% false positives for covid as used and the covid vaccines are not vaccines and toxic killing people in excess numbers since the rollout began. Give us a hearing please for the love of God.

HHS Q: Should the U.S. consider incentives to encourage U.S. stakeholders’ participation in such an effort and what would compelling incentives be?

IOJ Input: YES. Our input as stakeholders with a unique role to oversee science integrity, human rights, ethics and anti corruption in public private partnerships in particular should be incentivized and funded. We will write a separate proposal to partner with HHS as the Global Science Integrity Task Force (GSITF) and Anti Corruption Unit will call you to follow up until we can work together to clean up this mess. We want HHS to fund our UN Global Compact anti corruption collective action which will be an enormous assistance to HHS and is a mandate by the White House Science Task Force as well as a global request by UN to help them monitor themselves which HHS is incapable of without us dissenters at the intersection of science and policy. We are certified in Diplomatic law: privileges and immunities as well as Science Diplomacy SDG\'s, Multilateral and public Diplomacy by Diplo. We do not want to waste the precious time or resources of HHS. Our experts at GSITF have a lot to offer HHS which would greatly assist HHS and WHO to meet their international human rights and ethics obligations.

Our organization has a long history with HHS OGA and the WHO ignoring us and our experts scientific integrity disputes and it is not fair to barrel forward without giving us a detailed hearing on these and other pertinent and urgent issues that affect USA as well as the world.

IoJ spoke at every public meeting in WHO & HHS OGA (7 total) regarding IHR Amendments and Treaty

April 12, 2022 - Spoke at WHO 1st treaty hearing - [<a href="https://rumble.com/v10s1rx-interest-of-justice-establishes-strict-limits-for-the-who-pandemic-treaty-p.html">https://rumble.com/v10s1rx-interest-of-justice-establishes-strict-limits-for-the-who-pandemic-treaty-p.html</a>](<a href="https://rumble.com/v10s1rx-interest-of-justice-establishes-strict-limits-for-the-who-pandemic-treaty-p.html">https://rumble.com/v10s1rx-interest-of-justice-establishes-strict-limits-for-the-who-pandemic-treaty-p.html</a>)Wrote WHO\'s head attorney Kennith Piercey to complain that he gave no reason why he wrote to tell us we could not talk a second time.

We complained that WHO was not providing meaningful participation by limiting our speech to 2 minutes and not allowing more time to speak despite ending early. IOJ confirms no response was received from WHO\'s Head Attorney Piercey. Relevant and valuable information was not able to be shared by IOJ.

May 2, 2022, September 9, 2022 Wrote the WHO and Costa Rica Ministry of Foreign Affairs many times to ask how to get on Annex E - non response (Annex E in the WHO is for civil society Organizations to participate.
 	May 3, 2022 - Stakeholder engagement packet sent to WHO DG Tedros, Swaminathan, Piercey
 	May 13, 2022 - Spoke HHS OGA Stakeholder Listening Session
 	May 13, 2022 - IoJ’s Stakeholder engagement packet sent to HHS OGA (Health and Human Services, Office Of Global Affairs
 	May, 2022 - sent CR Ministry Foreign Affairs letter with Xavier, etc not to adopt IHR Amendments, reasons why to rebut, and included WHO is communist proof they still need to rebut
 	50,000 demands sent to HHS OGA to withdraw IHR Amendments submitted by Loyce Pace - May 22-28, 2022 - success at 75th WHA (12 of 13 IHR Amendments withdrawn)
 	IOJ made sure to formally Protest the WHA May 22-28, 2022 VOTE that allowed the remainder IHR Amendments - protests for cause, and demanded rebuttals (no response)
 	September 13, 2022 - we wrote Ministry of foreign Affairs Costa Rica for the request of whom is the delegate of the WHO?
 	Sept 29,30, 2022 - Spoke WHO 2nd treaty hearing, made video IoJ [<a href="https://rumble.com/v1jkrh4-interest-of-justice-90-second-video-to-the-whoinb-pandemic-treaty-september.html">https://rumble.com/v1jkrh4-interest-of-justice-90-second-video-to-the-whoinb-pandemic-treaty-september.html</a>](<a href="https://rumble.com/v1jkrh4-interest-of-justice-90-second-video-to-the-whoinb-pandemic-treaty-september.html">https://rumble.com/v1jkrh4-interest-of-justice-90-second-video-to-the-whoinb-pandemic-treaty-september.html</a>) Interest Of Justice 90 second video to the WHO/INB on the \"New international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response: contributing to the second round of public hearings at the WHO/INB\"
 	Wrote FOIA many times to get INB deadline to answer us WGIHR info how give effect law,Superiors, relevant departments - we received 1 irrelevant response not duly motivated or pertinent
 	October 12, 2022 - IoJ sent a FOIA request to the Costa Rica Ministry of foreign affairs as a “Petición” Request for mere non-technical administrative reports. Requested all contracts from PAHO WHO WEF IMF ETC... Judges ordered the documents which re still withheld and subject of criminal disobedience charges.
 	October 31, 2022 - (WHO) World Health Organization, WGIHR and IHRRC
 	January 23, 2023 - Rule number 1130 we sent Ethics Dept. of the WHO NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES AND REPLY (How to get on Annex E request for assistance again)
 	February 19, 2023 - IoJ sent notifications to the Second meeting of the Working Group on IHR to GBS-INDICO
 	Another of numerous requests to attend IHR meetings and know the secret information being discussed
 	March 2023 - Comptroller costa rica opens investigation for Pfizer contract irregularities of the contracts, export to CR and imports (turns out HHS has no DOA to export?)
 	May 21, 2023 - We sent a petition/demand called WHA must terminate WHO DG Tedros Contract for reasons of exceptional gravity likely to prejudice the interests of the organization Petition posted <a href="https://noticeanddemand.org/petition/terminatetedros/">https://noticeanddemand.org/petition/terminatetedros/</a> Notice of claim email WHO staff rule 1130 Notice of claim for responsibility to \"The Health Monopoly\": United States And Other Wrongdoer States, Covid Action Platform (WHO, WEF, Wellcome), WHO Vaccine Pre qualification EUL Program (WHO, FDA-CBER, EMA et al), UN Procurement including pharmaceutical Sponsors and Investors or Funders of WHO and all challenged programs and funds including Agenda 2030 SDG’s Not Backed By Science and violate Jus Cogens - NO response as usual.
 	July 24, 2023 Announced Writ of Prohibition & Demand for Global Referendum to Terminate UN Programs - no response
 	Open call for hearing & served by email to all delegates, WGIHR, INB, WHO DG, WHO Head Attorney - no response
 	Prohibition on Treaty, IHR and UN Programs issued until hearing for WHO to show us the science, ethics and law [<a href="https://noticeanddemand.org/petition/writ-of-prohibition/">https://noticeanddemand.org/petition/writ-of-prohibition/</a>](<a href="https://noticeanddemand.org/petition/writ-of-prohibition/">https://noticeanddemand.org/petition/writ-of-prohibition/</a>)
 	July 2023 INVALIDITY Report - The Oversight Committee (project by IoJ) issues IHR Invalidity Report [<a href="https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/invalidity-report-on-the-ihr-2005">https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/invalidity-report-on-the-ihr-2005</a>](<a href="https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/invalidity-report-on-the-ihr-2005">https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/invalidity-report-on-the-ihr-2005</a>)
 	November 2023 INVALIDITY Report - The Oversight Committee issues Pandemic Treaty (CA+) Invalidity Report <a href="http://www.theoversightcommittee.org/reports">http://www.theoversightcommittee.org/reports</a>
 	August 29, 2022 email Formal Letter to Department of Exterior of Costa Rica Politics, requesting delegate for WHO Treaty * August 29, 2022 Dept. Polit. Exterior Costa Rica - no response
 	September 19, 2023 email to UN political SDG Summit IoJ protested the United Nations Political Declaration SDG Summit for Climate Change
 	IoJ started communications with the United Nations SDG summit in regards to the invalidity of the UN political Declaration and the funding of the SDG\'s on Climate change <a href="https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/8-days-until-leaders-adopt-permanent">https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/8-days-until-leaders-adopt-permanent</a>
 	November 10, 2023 Global Science compact Sent to INB, and 13 others 1, Protest IHR and Request to support our science task force starting December 1st, 2023
 	Nov 11, 2023 - Letter to WHO, Costa Rica foreign affairs, etc - Objected to IHR Amendments, UN Political Declaration, Treaty and request to support Science Task Force.
 	November 14, 2023 Wrote Costa Rica Legislators to ask for help to stop the IHR in CR
 	A series of FOIAS in 2023 to HHS and DoD - HHS has NO records on covid vaccines we requested?
 	IOJ FOIA DOD March 6, 2023 Experimental Vaccine rollouts to DOD and HHS
 	October 20, 2023 FOIA request in regards to OTA DOD - still no response? Why?
 	October 20, 2023 - FOIA in regards to HHS DOD Dual Use Bio agent C-19 - no records? Why?
 	October 30, 2023 Spoke at WHO GPW14 CSO “consultation” and was censored. see:<a href="https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/who-censored-free-speech-associations">https://interestofjustice.substack.com/p/who-censored-free-speech-associations</a>
 	December 6, 2023 Interest of Justice World Health Organization GPW14 CSO Participation written comment
 	Comment to Office of Research Integrity ORI HHS January 4 _2024
 	January 12, 2024, A Zoom With WHO Chief Scientist Jeremy Farrar & Asked Him To Set Up A Scientific Integrity Dispute Hearing With Our Experts On mRNA DNA Integration & Climate Alarmism For WHO\'s GPW14
 	January 16, 2024 United Nations CSO declaration future Gen. IoJ was cut off from speaking along with many others

Interest of Justice and GSITF is directly requesting a consultation in private using science diplomacy to discuss these URGENT and critical matters. The whole pandemic accord treaty is based on flawed presumptions that can easily be disputed if you will just provide us the opportunity to consult and have a private or public hearing with our world class experts.

Thank you,

You can add formatting using markdown syntax - read more

Add me to your mailing list

Hide name from public

898 signatures

REMEMBER who you are. You are STAKEHOLDER. Not steak on the table.

“Stakeholders are invited to provide comments on any and all issues raised by the negotiating text, including potential vehicles and means for implementation of commitments to which the U.S. may subscribe.” – Health and Human Services Office of Global Affairs (HHS OGA)

If you want to be heard for sure you have until TODAY January 22, 2024 at 5pm EST to write HHS OGA to tell them respectfully and politely to EXIT WHO and do not adopt the treaty or new norms under WHO concepts & strategies. Late comments MAY be accepted so keep sending and sharing this so the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If you are overwhelmed with the complexity, Interest of Justice painstakingly stayed up all night & wrote HHS OGA a response for the deadline in the nick of time and you are all invited to sign it and send it in as we wrote it, or you can add your own comment.

They say the deadline is January 22, 2024 at 5pm EST BUT they also explain they may take important comments late, so keep signing and sharing for at least a few weeks to a month to let them know IOJ’s comment is absolutely critical to consider – because we prove the WHO MUST be EXITED as a matter of law based on our 2 year ongoing record of unanswered science integrity and crimes against humanity charges against he WHO.

Please note, this is a LOCKSTEP COLLECTIVE ACTION AGAINST WHO TREATY, IHR AND TO HALT FUNDING RATHER THAN SIGN MORE TIES THROUGH THE TREATY – IOJ will receive a backup copy of all of your responses for future litigation, so please be polite and to the point because the judge needs us to appear non biased while we tell HHS to get their act together and stop furthering and funding the crazy WHO schemes that violate international norms.

SIGN this petition & comment which will send directly to HHS OGA instantly with a copy for you and IOJ to have.

Join Class Action Charges Against WHO Chief Scientist Filed Prior To Leaving Office November 30!

Proposed IHR Amendments To Be Adopted In Secret 28-December 2, 2022 WHO Meeting!

Pandemic Treaty Draft And Dates Officially Released!

Sign IOJ's Comment To HHS Re: Pandemic Treaty

Written Comment Re: Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments in the WHO Pandemic Agreement

If you are overwhelmed with the complexity, Interest of Justice painstakingly stayed up all night & wrote HHS OGA a response for the deadline in the nick of time and you are all invited to sign it and send it in as we wrote it, or you can add your own comment.

Sign IOJ's Comment To HHS
Re: Pandemic Treaty