Open Referendum

Stop Medical Colonialism: Vote NO to the WHO, UN, and AU

Opened 27 November 2022

Vote in our referendum to withdraw from the WHO, the United Nations, the African Union, and anyone else who would like to mess with your sovereign rights.

Share this Referendum

Stop Medical Colonialism: Vote NO to the WHO, UN, and AU
Live Counter: 6,349 votes
Cast your Vote

With great appreciation to James Roguski for his untiring efforts in pushing back against the World Health Organization, and for his assistance in compiling this page.

Fast Facts

  • The WHO, UN and AU are collaborating to bring in ONE WORLD MEDICAL GOVERNMENT using their pandemic preparedness agreement and amendments to their “International Health Regulations”.

  • Although South Africa and 46 other African nations voiced their objections in 2022, the process is going ahead. THE MEDIA IS SILENT.

  • The WHO will have control of every aspect of our every day lives using health preparedness as their justification.

  • Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) in schools is a policy that has been created by and is being driven by the United Nations and the WHO.

  • The WHO wants women to have the right to abort their babies throughout pregnancy, i.e. until they are born.

  • The UN policy on sexual crimes directs that age should no longer be considered with regard to consent. Yes, that is unbelievable but, it’s true!

  • Were you happy with how the WHO managed the “pandemic”? Fraudulent tests, lockdowns, masks, children taken out of school, track and trace, “vaccines” and access to ivermectin denied. The WHO thinks all of this is fantastic, but wants to add “vaccine” passports and MORE VACCINES to their tools and tactics.

  • The WHO is funded by Big Pharma, who have profited HUGELY from vaccines. THIS IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

  • This show kicked off in December 2022, will cost tax payer money, and if we don’t comply we will be sanctioned!

Please take the time to read and share the very important information below concerning the future of South Africa with your groups, communities, congregations, family and friends.

Unfortunately, events are currently taking place of which the media is not making the public aware.

The most important of these is the creation of a legally-binding relationship with the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) via a “Pandemic Treaty” (“the treaty”), also known as the WHO CAII: Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument.

The agreements that the government is entering into — behind our backs — could give the WHO jurisdiction and dominion over every aspect of our lives. 

This agreement could override our constitutional rights.

Regulations pertaining to our health are being used to allow for a neo-colonialist, one world government.

This may seem unbelievable but, sadly, technically and legally speaking, this is is true!

The WHO is a division of the United Nations that was supposed to be funded by member states, but is now largely funded by privately-run organisations, many of whom are investors in Big Pharma. It has run the pandemic and our lives for almost three years. Government, and even Woolworths, refer constantly to the need to follow instructions from the WHO. We can provide incontrovertible proof of this.

To date, the WHO has had the power to make recommendations, but not to enforce them. However, the South African government and many other countries voted the proposed “pandemic treaty” should be legally-binding at a meeting held in July 2022, which means that this will no longer be the case.

South Africa is also co-chairing the development of the pandemic treaty so there is no question that our government wants this to happen. Deputy President David Mabuza has stated on record that “the treaty” will go ahead, the NEC will decide, and this issue will not be debated in Parliament.

The treaty” will allow the WHO to continue to do and enforce everything they have done wrong over the past two to three years and more, i.e. declare a pandemic for a disease that was, in fact, no more serious than the flu, based on fraudulent RT-PCR testing and, worst of all, death from which could have been prevented if early treatment with zinc, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, had been allowed and supported.

Our government has indeed betrayed the trust of the people of South Africa.

What is wrong with the WHO

The WHO has taken / is taking over control of each country’s health and freedom.

Did you know:

  • The WHO is literally set up to operate as a One World Government? (Chapter II — Functions-Articles 2 (v), 19 and 20)
  • The WHO can, at any timedeclare a pandemic, based on any fraudulent medical test? (Chapter II — Functions-Article 2‑t)
  • The WHO declared the current pandemic based on the severely-flawed RT-PCR test, which produces up to 94% of false-positives? WATCH: The PCR Test FRAUD - Dr. Kary Mullis Explains Why
  • All the nations of the world, our government and businesses like Woolworths obligate themselves to follow instructions and requirements of the WHO with regard to RT-PCR and also, most importantly, the categorization of “immunization” as it relates to “mandates” in the workplace? Our government also, unsurprisingly, partnered with the WHO and COVAX to produce vaccines. See the proof with your own two eyes.
  • The WHO is owned and controlled by private individuals, who are not democratically elected by anyone? READ: WHO Conflicts of Interest by Fahrie Hassan
  • This makes the WHO effectively a private entity that rules the entire world, outside of any form of democracy?
  • The entire health system of our world is owned by financial oligarchs, who use it to dominate all of humanity?


Below, a few things the WHO got wrong with the last “pandemic” but, have failed to acknowledge…

  • They failed to recognise the benefits of preventative treatments with vitaminsminerals such as Vitamin D and zinc
  • They failed to recognise the benefits of repurposed essential medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
  • They failed to address the deadly side effects of approved drugs, such as Remdesivir and Midazolam.
  • They prevented the use of creative and effective treatments by frontline doctors because of the lack of peer-reviewed studies.
  • They seem to still believe that ventilators saved lives.
  • The WHO and their IPPR still believe that “COVID-19 vaccines” are “safe and effective”.
  • They still seem to believe that “equity” in distributing dangerous, untested and damaging “COVID-19 vaccines” is more important than the freedom of choice to decide whether one wishes to be part of a global gene therapy medical experiment. 
  • They do not acknowledge the economic devastation and mental health catastrophe caused by lockdowns.
  • They still refuse to accept that pretending to determine cases via RT-PCR is NOT a valid way of diagnosing COVID-19.
  • They seem to be in denial that the number of people who died “with COVID-19” were fraudulently included in the overall death totals.
  • They still seem to believe that early detection and not early treatment, is the best way to prevent outbreaks spreading and becoming pandemics.

Don’t believe us? Please fact check us using the download links and watching the videos provided below.


This is their current plan, and backs up what we are saying with regards to what they got wrong and won’t acknowledge:

What is wrong with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus?

The Director-General of the WHO is the first Director-General who isn’t a Medical Doctor, and who has been accused of the following: 

  1. Covering up three cholera epidemics.
  2. Mismanagement of ebola.
  3. Abuse of office.

Ghebreyesus was, and still is, a high-ranking member of the Tigre People’s Liberation Front, a corrupt and violent organisation who are responsible for crimes against humanity (bombings, kidnappings, torture, killings and the support of civil war.

A complaint to the above effect has been submitted but, no outcome is known at this point.

Ghebreyesus has a close relationship with the Bill & Melinda Gates and Clinton Foundations and their namesake founders and has the full support of the Communist Party of China (CCP).

Ghebreyesus overruled a panel of nine advisors who voted against declaring Monkeypox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Ghebreyesus made a point of adding the panel is informal, and he has the final say.

We’re not sure what caused Ghebreyesus to turn out this way but, we don’t feel reassured by any of the above and would like to put social and every other kind of distance between ourselves and him as well as The WHO themselves.


What is wrong with their “Pandemic Treaty”?

Download the working draft of the pandemic treaty (“the treaty”), also known as the WHO CAII: Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument.


Provisions of “the treaty” threaten the individual sovereignty and personal freedoms of the citizens of their 194 member nations.

The treaty” aims to implement the “One Health” agenda with a “whole-of-government” and a “whole-of-society” approach. 

The term “One Health” is supposed to reflect the interconnectedness of human health, animal health, and the environment which sounds lovely…

However, their concept of “One Health” appears to give the WHO control over every aspect of life on earth which includes control of information including social media (Part 4, Section 13) and, (Part 4, Section 14) they also make it very clear that The WHO needs our money.

Their Dictator, oops, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is on record to state:

In the face of a common threat, the world needs a common approach, with common rules of the game (?) that govern the global response”

Ah… how amazing – we already have a One Health Programme in partnership with the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to detect and deal with zoonotic disease… e.g. “viruses” that caused by “germs” that spread between animals and people.

These guys are organised!

The following bill is under consideration in the United States Senate:

S.861 — Advancing Emergency Preparedness Through One Health Act of 2021

In May 2021, the WHO’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR) presented its recommendations.

In this video, you can see granite-faced, steely Right Honourable Helen Clark state that:

  • They have already “assigned responsibilities for who needs to do what across nation states of the WHO, the World Health Assembly and the UN General Assembly”.
  • These proposals ARE actionable.”

They have had success during COVID-19 because:

  • They developed the “COVID-19 vaccines” at unprecedented speed.
  • Open data and open science collaboration were central.” 

They want to: 

  • strengthen the WHO”, 
  • establish a new global surveillance system”. 
  • establish a pre-established platform for tools and supplies” , 
  • new international financing for global public goods”, and, lastly 
  • Call for immediate actions to end “COVID-19”

The IPPR recommends creating a “Global Health Threats Council”, led by Heads of State and government, and they recommend the following for immediate action –

  • Elevation of leadership to prepare for and respond to global health threats to the highest levels to ensure just, accountable and multi-sectoral action, and
  • Empowerment of the WHO to take a leading, convening, and co-ordinating role in operational aspects of an emergency response.

Were you happy with the way the WHO organised the “COVID-19 pandemic”?

  • Strengthen the authority and independence of the Director-General, including by having a single term of office of seven years.
  • The Director-General of the WHO should be given the legal authority to unilaterally declare an international pandemic without any peer-review or democratic process.

Yeah… basically what he did the last time but, now we know, or at least we should know that this is NOT A GOOD IDEA!

Are you happy that their current D‑G who is linked to war crimes and cover-ups of cholera epidemics should be given more power? By the way, on July 23, 2022, the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, declared the current monkeypox outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), overriding the WHO Emergency Committee, which decided 6 – 9 against recommending a PHEIC. 

  • The WHO should be given the authority to set benchmarks for healthcare systems around the world. The WHO is to formalise universal periodic reviews as a means of accountability and learning between countries. 

Sjoe! The WHO are in charge of our health, full stop. We wonder what will provide the incentive to adhere – or, should we rather say, “comply” – with their benchmarks. 

  • Resource and equip the WHO’s country offices sufficiently to respond to technical requests from national governments to support “pandemic preparedness” 

What did we say about “one world government”…?

  • The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the WHO should convene major vaccine-producing countries and manufacturers to agree to voluntary licensing and technology transfer for “COVID-19 vaccines”.

Remember that the WHO is privately owned and is funded by Big Pharma which is a potential and dangerous opportunity for conflict of interest. Do you feel that this sort of decision-making regarding public/​our health should be in the hands of the people that potentially benefit from those decisions?

  • Establish the financial independence of the WHO based on fully un-earmarked resources, and on an increase in member states’ fees to two thirds of the WHO’s base programme budget. 

This sounds good in that maybe this reduces the influence of Big Pharma with regard to potential conflict of interests based on funding… but, the problem of who actually owns the WHO is still a major issue.

  • The WHO should establish a new agile and rapid surveillance and alert system based on full transparency of all parties using state-of-the-art digital tools. 

They are talking about YOU! Are you happy to forfeit ALL your privacy and be watched, tracked and traced 247, the justification of which is based on a “virus” for which there is an infection fatality rate that is less than that of the flu?

  • The WHO is to be given explicit authority to publish information about outbreaks with pandemic potential immediately without requiring prior approval of national governmental bodies and the power to investigate pathogens with pandemic potential with short-notice access to relevant sites, provision of samples, and standing multi-entry visas for international experts to outbreak locations.

Who will be providing these “samples”? Will it be consensual if their “authority” to demand them is “explicit”? 

  • Further declarations of a public health emergency of international concern should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted, as in the case of respiratory pathogens, and on clear, objective and published criteria.

As in Monkeypox, perhaps? Or, maybe, a “pandemic” such as “COVID-19” with an infection rate of less than the flu.

  • The WHO wants pathogens to be shipped to a biological laboratory hub in Switzerland.

This sounds familiar and the same people, e.g. Bill Gates, are involved. May we remind you of this and this.

  • G7 Countries should immediately commit to provide 60% of the EYE-POPPING US$19 Billion required for ACT‑A in 2021 for vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics and strengthening of health systems. (We said they wanted your/​our money… NO WORDS, HONESTLY!)
  • The raising of new international financing for “pandemic preparedness” and response to raise additional reliable funding for “pandemic preparedness”, and for rapid surge financing for response, with the capacity to mobilise long-term (10−15 year) contributions of approximately US$5 – 10 Billion per annum to finance preparedness and the ability to disburse up to US$5 – 100 billion at short notice in the event of a “crisis”.
  • Their Dictator, oops, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is on record to state that they want US$31 Billion per annum.
  • The Global Health Threats Council will have the task of allocating and monitoring funding from this instrument.

This sounds like a lot of/​too much money to us South Africans. The citizens of the world could probably resolve a few urgent problems with this amount of money.

Remember, the WHO is privately owned and funded by Big Pharma (as described in the “What is wrong with the WHO?” box above). Remember that they pay out 400% more in travel expenses for their 7000 staff than they do on resolving TB.

Compare and contrast: 1,5 million people died of TB in 2020. They spent US$59-million on trying to deal with this disease… 

  • Every country should apply non-pharmaceutical public health measures systematically and rigorously at the scale the epidemiological situation requires with an explicit evidence-based strategy agreed at the highest level of government to curb “COVID-19” transmission.

What are non-pharmaceutical measures? Yes, they said it! They are talking about masking, testing, track-and-trace surveillance and monitoring, isolation and quarantine? Were you happy with how the WHO handled this the last time? Where was the evidence-based medicine? Where was “the science”?

  • The IPPR also suggested a special session of the United Nations General Assembly and that the IMF must also include a pandemic preparedness assessment, including an evaluation of economic policy response plans, as part of the article IV consultation with member countries (because “they” are all “in this together”) to support the call for the Pandemic Framework Convention.

May we now break their “programming” to remind you that the infection fatality rate for “COVID-19” was 0.3-0.4%, and this could have been rendered statistically insignificant if the correct early treatment protocols were used. 

Yes, they really think we are that stupid… Come on guys, please prove them wrong! 

PS: Where is ALL government on this, and why does the media not seem to care?


Why do they keep renaming their project?

The WHO has decided to no longer refer to “the treaty” as a “Pandemic Treaty”. They are now referring to it as the WHO CAII: The WHO’s Convention, Agreement or International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention.

One can only speculate why they have chosen to refer to “the treaty” by so many different names… 

For your reference and information, below follows an explanation of the difference between a convention, an agreement and an international instrument.

A Framework Convention

Where international diplomacy is concerned, a Framework Convention is a relatively vague agreement amongst nations in which they agree on general and basic principles. It would establish a broad obligations and commitments but would leave the details to be enacted by each member nation according to each nation’s legal requirements. One example of a Framework Convention is the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2003 and came into force in 2005.

According to Articles 19 and 20 the constitution of the Who, a two-third majority vote of the World Health Assembly is required for the adoption of any convention or agreement, and will come into force when the nation accepts it in accordance with its constitutional processes. Each nation will have 18 months to either to pass legislation to enforce the agreement or proactively reject it via simply furnishing a statement with the reasons for non-acceptance.

Silence = Consent.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was signed by the USA but, never submitted to the Senate for advice or consent.


The second pathway by which The WHO may choose to proceed would be to format an agreement along the lines of regulations similar to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This process would be much easier as it only requires a simple majority vote in the World Health Assembly, and comes into force simply via a notification of its adoption. The WHO may adopt regulations under Articles 21 and 22 of their constitution, and regulations may come into effect just 10 months after the member nations have been notified of their adoption.


The third path by which The WHO could achieve their objectives would fall under Article 23 of the WHO’s Constitution, which is actually what the WHO does constantly, i.e. to merely make recommendations. These recommendations are not legally binding, yet most member nations voluntarily implement the recommendations.

The difference between the ‘pandemic treaty’ and the IHR amendments, at a glance

The “pandemic treaty” is “THE WHAT”

The treaty provides for a very cost-intensive, supranational bureaucracy and ideological framework within which that bureaucracy can control our health and that of all the other member states.

The WHO will control —

  1. ALL pathogens with “pandemic” potential, i.e. any disease that has spread across the world. According to their definitions, this relates to how infectious a disease is, not danger and risk.

  2. ALL means of pharmaceutical production.

  3. ALL pharmaceutical hospital and emergency care facilities.

  4. ALL “dis/​misinformation”, identifying the parties responsible and “counteract” this — whatever they deem this “misinformation” to be.

IMPLEMENTATION: The government of each member state must sign up to this treaty in order to participate.

The IHR amendments are “THE HOW”

The IHR amendments provide a legal framework to extend and allow for monopoly power of the WHO and its Director-General over us, and other member states. 

  1. The WHO’s proclamations and diktats would be legally binding and not advisory as they have been in the past.

  2. Nations would be legally enabled and required to implement the regulations of the WHO without respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of we, the people.

  3. Digital “Health” Certificates would be implemented!

  4. Billions of dollars would be recruited from we the tax payers of the member states.

IMPLEMENTATION: Agreement by only a simple majority (50% plus one member state) is needed to pass amendments because they are changes to an existing agreement.

Who are the member states involved, and who are our representatives?

WHO member states:

WHO “Pandemic Treaty” Delegates:

Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB)

Contact the members of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to serve them a Notice of Liability, or share your opinions with them:

INB Secretariat

How is this process being implemented (behind our backs)?

A Framework Convention or agreement can be adopted under Articles 19 and 20. This would require a two-thirds majority vote of the World Health Assembly. 

Regulations can be adopted under Articles 21 and 22, and only require a simple majority. 

Recommendations can be adopted under Article 23 of the WHO constitution.

Refer to section below, entitled The WHO’s forward planner / the “Pandemic Treaty Schedule”

Secret negotiations are being conducted along two parallel tracks:

Track One: The Pandemic Treaty

The WHO is attempting to negotiate a legally binding international “Pandemic Treaty” which could usurp national sovereignty and restrict our personal freedoms.

This initiative relies on Article 19 of the Constitution of the WHO.

Delegates from every nation have been instructed by the WHO to submit their written proposals to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) by 15 September 2022.

From now until 15 September 2022, delegates from all 194 member nations of the World Health Organization are in the process of submitting their proposals for consideration in the “conceptual zero draft” of the “Pandemic Treaty.”

The INB plans to compile these secret submissions into what they refer to as a “conceptual zero draft.” They then plan to secretly circulate this “conceptual zero draft” amongst the member nations in mid-November 2022, in advance of the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on 5 – 7 December 2022.

Dateline: “Pandemic Treaty” Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument (CAII)

  1. Intergovernmental Negotiating Body
  2. Member Nations submit proposed language by 15 September 2022
  3. Public comment period (written and Zoom conference): 29 – 30 September 2022 (details to be determined)
  4. Six (6) regional meetings scheduled to begin 22 August 2022
  5. Informal Focused Conversations: October
  6. A “conceptual zero draft” (Framework) to be circulated secretly: mid-November
  7. Third meeting of the INB: 5 – 7 December 2022

Track Two: Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR)

This track is exceedingly secretive, and relies on Article 21 of the Constitution of The WHO.

At the same time, the WHO has set up a Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR). The International Health Regulations is an existing body of international law that is legally binding upon all member nations, and any amendments to the IHR would also be legally binding. Delegates from every member nation have been instructed by the WHO to submit their written proposals by 30 September 2022.

From now until 30 September 2022, delegates from all 194 member nations of the World Health Organization are in the process of submitting their proposals for amendments to the IHR prior to the first meeting of the WGIHR.

The first meeting of the WGIHR has not been formally scheduled. It should occur some time before 15 November 2022.

Over 36,000 written public comments were submitted back in April 2022, the majority of which opposed any form of agreement.

The INB met from Monday, 18 July 18 2022 until Thursday, 21July 2022 to discuss the WHO CAII. They were also supposed to meet on Friday, 22 July 2022, but that meeting was cancelled. The first two days were live-streamed and the recordings are available. However, the meetings on 20 – 21 July 2022 were held in secret.

Dateline: Working Group for Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) (Article 21)

  1. Biden’s Proposed amendments were defeated
  2. Working Group for Amendments to the existing (84 page) IHR (WGIHR)
  3. Member nations must submit proposed amendments by September 30, 2022
  4. No public comment period scheduled
  5. First meeting by 15 November 2022
  6. Submission of report to the WHO by 15 January 2023

The WHO’s documents claim no action expected until 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024, but earlier adoption in 2023 is of great concern.

Why is South Africa in charge of making this happen?

We really have no idea of why and how this came about, but, Dr. Precious Matsotso, while not a Medical Doctor, is co-chairing the INB, which is tasked with the development of “the treaty”.

READ: SA’s former health DG to lead development of a future pandemic treaty for WHO

You can listen to her worrying waffle here, the most concerning aspect of which is the emphasis on compliance and also accelerating the process so that it can complete a year ahead of time in 2023.

This woman has a masters degree in Law and Ethics (LLM) from Dundee University and was a member of the National Research Ethics Council of South Africa, but, had nothing to say about the fact that no informed consent has been given, nor is it in fact possible, with regard to the “COVID-19 vaccines”.

WATCH: Toward a Pandemic Preparedness Treaty: A conversation with Precious Matsoso

A request for information to government from NEASA
The WHO’s forward planner / the “Pandemic Treaty Schedule”

What the WHO is putting in legal and jurisdictional cement via their regional consultations and planned “treaty” or amendments is CHILLING and is, in fact, already being rolled out across the world.

See below, and the downloads that follow:

22 July — 15 September 2022: Provision of written input 
Member States and relevant stakeholders provide written input on the working draft (document A/INB/2/3)

22 August — 28 October 2022: Regional consultation
Bureau explains how the discussions in the regional committees are to be handled and considers the possibility of informal consultations with each individual region where necessary.

29 – 30 September 2022: Second round of public hearings
Secretariat holds the second round of public hearings.

October 2022: Informal, focused consultations
Bureau conducts informal, focused consultations on selected key issues, including with experts, as invited by the Bureau. Open to all Member States and relevant stakeholders. A summary report from the informal focused consultations to be made available in advance of the third meeting of the INB.

November 2022: Bureau to develop the conceptual zero draft
Bureau consolidates comments from the second meeting of the INB, written inputs from Member States and relevant stakeholders, input from regional consultations, and the outcomes from public hearings and informal, focused consultations, and uses them in its development of the conceptual zero draft.

Mid-November 2022
Bureau sends out conceptual zero draft, reflecting inputs provided from the regions, public hearings and other intersessional work.

5 – 7 December 2022: Third Meeting of the INB
Consideration of the conceptual zero draft; discussion of the way forward, including development of the zero draft and establishment of drafting group modalities.

Regional Meetings

22 – 26 August 2022, Lomé, Togo: Regional Committee for Africa — 72nd Session

5 – 9 September 2022, Thimpu, Bhutan: Regional Committee for South-East Asia — 75th Session

12 – 14 September 2022, Tel Aviv, Israel: Regional Committee for Europe — 72nd Session (WATCH: This is how public input and comment is being handled during the regional consultations)

10 – 13 October 2022, Cairo, Egypt: Regional Committee for the Eastern Mediterranean — 69th Session

24 – 28 October 2022, Manila, Philipines: Regional Committee for the Western Pacific — 73rd Session

Public Hearings

12 – 13 April 2022
The first round of public hearings addressed the guiding question “What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?.”

29 – 30 September 2022
The guiding question that will be addressed during the second round of public hearings will be announced soon.

Document Downloads:

The Time of COVID – A Report by Phillip M. Altman — 4.34 Mb
Open this File
WHO: Leveraging digital transformation for better health in Europe: Regional digital health action plan for the WHO European Region 2023–2030, Draft resolution sponsored by Israel — 143.25 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Regional action plans for ending AIDS and the epidemics of viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections 2022–2030, Draft resolution — 149.63 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Leveraging digital transformation for better health in Europe: Regional digital health action plan for the WHO European Region 2023–2030 — 208.76 Kb
Open this File
WHO: The WHO European framework for action to achieve the highest attainable standard of health for persons with disabilities 2022–2030 — 216.31 Kb
Open this File
WHO: European regional action framework for behavioural and cultural insights for health, 2022–2027 — 327.83 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Tuberculosis action plan for the WHO European Region 2023-2030 — 217.03 Kb
Open this File
WHO: European regional action framework for behavioural and cultural insights for health, 2022–2027, Draft resolution — 143.63 Kb
Open this File
WHO: European framework for action on alcohol 2022–2025 — 215.93 Kb
Open this File
WHO: European framework for action on alcohol 2022–2025, Draft decision — 145.19 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Delivering United Action for Better Health – a strategy for collaboration between the WHO Regional Office for Europe and Member States in the WHO European Region, Draft resolution — 129.98 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Dates and places of regular sessions of the Regional Committee for Europe in 2023–2025, Draft resolution — 126.53 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Engagement with non-State actors: accreditation of regional non-State actors not in official relations with WHO to attend meetings of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe Draft decision — 120.17 Kb
Open this File
WHO: The WHO European framework for action to achieve the highest attainable standard of health for persons with disabilities 2022–2030 — 202.83 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Roadmap to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem in the WHO European Region 2022–2030 — 196.57 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Special rules and procedures, Draft decision — 139.34 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Provisional list of representatives and other participants, Regional Committee for Europe — 1016.73 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Report of the Twenty-ninth Standing Committee of the Regional Committee for Europe, Draft resolution — 164.76 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Report of the Regional Director on the work of WHO/Europe in 2021–2022 Draft resolution — 122.64 Kb
Open this File
WHO: Regional digital health action plan for the WHO European Region 2023–2030 — 253.48 Kb
Open this File
WHO: European regional action framework for behavioural and cultural insights for health, 2022–2027 — 272.87 Kb
Open this File
DoH: South Africa Covid-19 & Vaccine Social Listening Report 5 September 2022, Report 65 — 246.02 Kb
Open this File
Are proper administrative procedures being followed?

According to the South African government’s Directive for the Conclusion on International Agreements (2019) anyone who attempts to negotiate any form of international treaty or agreement on behalf of the Republic of South Africa must be duly authorized in advance in order to participate in such negotiations and the scope of their authority must also be clearly defined in advance. Does any evidence exist that our South African delegates to the WHO have received such authorization to negotiate with the WHO?

What Deputy President David Mabuza has to say:

When it comes international agreements, Section 231 (1) of the Constitution is clear that the negotiation and signing of all international agreements is the responsibility of the national executive”

Parliament will have a role in the ratification of the treaty once concluded, as international agreements become law after being approved by the resolution in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.”

International agreements become national law only upon ratification by Parliament. Drawing on the lessons that were learnt from responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the proposed Global Pandemic Treaty will complement the International Health Regulations.

Ambassadors were requested to attend the regional consultations which seems unusual if these agreements are supposed to be all about health.

Why we wish to withdraw from the WHO, the United Nations, AND the African Union
Why voting in this referendum is URGENT

Many people think that our government and other African countries blocked the pandemic treaty and International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments in May 2022. 

This is not true!

Strangely, ALL government, and their friends in the media, are not telling us what is happening behind our backs. 

In fact, the WHO held meetings throughout September 2022 to discuss and plan the above.

South Africa’s representative, Dr Precious Matsotso, is actually IN CHARGE of making the pandemic treaty happen, and wants it implemented by 2023. Deputy President, David Mabuza, has also said that the national executive committee – not Parliament – will decide on the WHO’s treaty, and it will definitely go ahead. 

There are those who think COVID-19 is over, and many who believe that the WHO’s treaties will only kick in if there is a pandemic. 

To them we say: the WHO and UN are planning for more “pandemic preparedness”. They want their systems ready, operational and in place. This could mean that we would have to live in a state of WHO “pandemic preparedness”, in terror of their declaration of their next so-called “pandemic”.

The WHO and the UN are on record to state that they want 500 new “vaccines” available by 2030 with “no-one left behind”.

Do you know that TB kills more people than any other infectious disease? 1.5 million people died from TB every year before “COVID-19”. 

Why did the WHO only spend US$59-million on TB, compared to the US$200-million+ they spent on travel for their 7,000+ staff in 2018, and not declare TB a pandemic?

Do you remember life before “COVID-19”? Unless you had TB, most of us were doing just fine. 

The WHO declared a pandemic on the basis of a death toll of 171 on the back of testing via fraudulent PCR. 

Were you, your family and friends happy with how the WHO organised “COVID-19”? Lockdowns, masks, track and trace and “vaccines”? 

We are so over it. But it is not over! This will only be over when we say NO! 

Please share this vital information far and wide. This situation is unfortunately URGENT!

Expectation Management

Please don’t be disappointed and do not give up hope if the VOTE NO TO THE WHO referendum is slow to get going.

We expect that it will take a while to spread the word and get South Africans to mobilise. 

We know more nonsense is coming…
When it does, more people will wake up.

We have started. We are organised. We are ready!

So, what can we do to stop the WHO?

We have apparently signed over the power to negotiate international treaties via our registration with the IEC which legitimises government to negotiate treaties on our behalf.

Deregistration from the IEC is however, likely to be of little significant effect where this issue is concerned.

South Africa needs to withdraw from the WHO and the United Nations with immediate effect. There is no point in trying to negotiate with a privately-owned, compromised, and ineffective and worse institution, whose intentions have cynically set in place the overriding our constitutional rights.

America withdrew from the WHO in early 2020, although Joe Biden reinstated their membership on his first day of office. It is, therefore, clear that this is a very doable action that we can, and must, take ASAP.

Unfortunately, it is however, very clear that the government will have no interest in doing this.

How do we overcome this?

Well, many South Africans don’t realise that we no longer have the means to call for and hold a referendum.

The right to a referendum – which allows the public to decide on an issue, not the government – is enshrined in our constitution!

Unfortunately, however, the ANC have never enacted the legislation to provide for this.

Yes, yet another betrayal of justice, human rights and the people of South Africa.

To resolve this, we have provided an independent platform where South Africans can vote their non-consent to be part of these organisations. If millions of South Africans step into their power and stand together in numbers we can turn this ship around. International law supports the will of the people, and it will be impossible for anyone anywhere, be it here in South Africa or in another country, to challenge anything that the majority of we, the people want to do.

If you think this is a stretch of the imagination, would be impossible, or isn’t ever going to happen, just take a moment to look at what Brazil has done, here and here.

Being responsible for ourselves and the lives of each other is the answer!

Please join us in voting to withdraw your consent to South Africa being a member of the WHO, the United Nations, and the African Union.

Please promote the platform and spread the word about what we are trying to do. Please be an ambassador for what is right, true and good for our country.

Thank you for supporting our human rights.

Cast your Vote

Share this Referendum

More Referendums

Vote NO to 5G and Harmful Wireless Radiation!

The government’s actions in authorising the roll-out of 5G in South Africa are a reckless breach of our human and constitutional rights to a safe environment.

Coming Soon
Bye Bye BELA Bill – Vote NO, this Bill must GO!

The proposed Bill is the first major revision of the post-Apartheid education landscape, and will likely shape that landscape for the next 10 to 15 years.

Vote Now 124,036 votes
Protect the Children
Protect the Children
Opened 27 November 2022

Cast your vote on whether or not children should be “vaccinated” against COVID-19.

Vote Now 8,283 votes
Power Belongs to the People: Vote NO, Eskom is Not for Sale!

Selling Eskom to big business is not the answer.

Vote Now 1,635 votes a red list initiative © 2022—2024, All Rights Reserved.