“Nations were being asked all to set up genetic sequencing laboratories, which is ridiculous. In the middle of Africa, where you can’t get a urine specimen or a blood count, you need to build a very high-tech sequencing lab? And then you had to put the sequences of these microorganisms and viruses that you found online, where of course hackers can get them.”
– Meryl Nass MD, from this week’s interview
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
There is some alarm circulating recently concerning a U.S. federally commissioned report put out by the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense and entitled The National Blueprint for Biodefense: Immediate Action Needed to Defend Against Biological Threats.
It postulates a hypothetical scenario where a group of terrorists launched a biological attack on Washington D.C. on July 4th, 2025. The weapon-of-choice was a version of the Nipah vorus, with a 40 percent mortality rate, but modified to make it spread more easily to humans and animals. In the blueprint scenario, 280,000 Americans were killed and 400,000 sickened in a single day. [1]
Very much like Event 201, it was intended as a teaching and training resource in the wake of a fictional high level pandemic. It was attempted less than two months before the COVID-19 scenario unravelled. [2]
Could a weaponized version of Nipah or some other pathogen be waiting in the wings for another “coincidental” outbreak?
Enter the Pandemic Agreement. On May 19, 2025, following tremendous popular resistance going into the last round at the 77th World Health Assembly last year, this year the World Health Organization’s bureaucracy apparently managed to reword it, and cajole decision-makers in such a way that the 194 nations around the world – with varying degrees of enthusiasm – managed to cement this agreement in place the following day. A vehicle by which the world would be made “more equitable and safer from future pandemics!” [3]
As we have mentioned in past episodes of this program, the Pandemic Agreement in combination with amendments to the International Health Regulations Amendments would effectively eliminate our national sovereignty, bring non-human animal health, climate/environmental health, and essentially everything in the world under the principle of “One Health” to ensure virtually everything is under the control of the World Health Organization.
The Global Research News Hour this week takes a close look at what is actually in the “new and improved” Pandemic Agreement, and look at the framework of meetings and policies that contextualize what’s being planned in the months and years ahead.
In our first half hour we play part of an interview from 2024 with James Corbett of the Corbett Report on his thoughts surrounding the apparent failure of the first attempt at a Pandemic Agreement for which he was not about to “rest on his laurels or pat himself on the back,” and about his belief that the Pandemic was only just being “kicked down the road” until a later date when the planners could properly dot all “Is” and cross all “Ts.” Following Mr. Corbett, we were also joined by Meryl Nass MD who has also looked with great detail into the Agreement hot off the press and talk about what the agreement could mean despite the way it has allegedly been “watered down.”
James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.
Dr. Meryl Nass is a National Merit Scholar. She has entered MIT before completing high school; BS Biology 1974, MD 1980, Board Certified in Internal Medicine 1986. She has practiced medicine for 41 years. Traveled to over 50 countries, has 2 children, single parent. She was the first person in the world to study an epidemic and show it was due to biological warfare. Her sites are merylnass.substack.com and doortofreedom.org
(Global Research News Hour Episode 476)
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Transcription of Conversation with Dr. Meryl Nass, June 4, 2025
Global Research: This new agreement that got passed at the World Health Assembly, could you maybe describe what is different about this Pandemic Agreement which did get approved as opposed to the last agreement in 2024 which did not get passed?
Meryl Nass: Yes, but in order to do that let me give some background. So at the very beginning of the COVID pandemic, groups of western nations and their leaders got together and decided that under the guise of preventing any more pandemics and having them managed properly, that pandemics of the future and biological warfare of the future would need a global response, a centralized response centered in the World Health Organization.
Now the World Health Organization is only funded 15 percent by dues from its member nations and 85 percent is donations from pharmaceutical companies, philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and nations, most of which designate their donation to be spent on certain projects or certain products.
GR: So are you saying it’s basically a public-private partnership?
MN: Yes, basically the World Health Organization is run by hidden hands that donate money and so 75 percent of the activities that the World Health Organization performs are done for these private donors and only 25 percent are actually initiated within the WHO and done for the member nations. The UN has a similar organization. I’m not sure what percent of its expenditures are paid as dues, but in any event, the plan was back in end of 2020-2021 that amendments to an existing agreement called the International Health Regulations and a new pandemic treaty would be developed that would provide the legal and administrative infrastructure to centralize control of public health globally.
And they did this in a number of ways. They made the original versions of these two documents filled with orders. So in a treaty, when you say shall, it means you must.
And so there are over a hundred shalls in each of these draft treaties that nations must do this, must do that, must pass laws that the WHO tells them to pass in order to rapidly roll out drugs and vaccines in a pandemic, must surveil their citizens in three ways. They had to when they’re told to by the WHO. So they have to swab their citizens in the event of a pandemic.
They have to surveil the social media presence of their citizens so that they can clamp down and censor any non-WHO narratives that are going around the internet about the pandemic. And they had to make available their subjects’ medical records so the WHO could evaluate them to see whether there was a new pandemic starting somewhere. If people in one region start coming down with a similar group of symptoms, that supposedly would help the WHO to identify pandemics early and jump on them before they got out of hand.
GR: So basically what you’re saying is they’re not giving their advice. I mean, they’re ordering you to do these things, right?
MS: That’s correct. So that was the original plan and it couldn’t get passed.
I think that perhaps those documents would have been accepted and adopted if the people of the world didn’t really know what was in them. But my organization worked with a number of other organizations and I traveled around the world. I spoke in eight different parliaments and groups of activists around the world started having meetings and showing people what was actually in these documents, that your own country would no longer have sovereignty over health.
But the WHO, whenever the director general made a declaration, would then take over public health for the world. And public health itself was expanded. So the World Health Organization, along with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, EcoHealth Alliance, and the US government, the British government, the Dutch government, and many others had come up with this bogus concept called One Health.
And the idea of One Health was to expand what public health really meant and say that One Health had to do with the health of animals, plants, ecosystems, in addition to people. And so if the director general felt that there was a threat to an ecosystem, or a climate threat, or a gun threat, or a smoking threat, he could then issue orders to ban, you know, private ownership of guns or smoking or gasoline powered cars, things like that. So that was how these things were originally written, giving him this potential tremendous authority.
GR: And you’d basically be giving them the authority not just to make commands on health, but in a sense, you know, extend their reach to, you know, I guess, you know, climate change or animals or all sorts of other, extending their reach, right?
MN: Extending their reach. So, you know, it’s a clever idea if you’re a globalist, and you want to obtain greater control over the people of the world. And they also did something which has been ongoing for 30 years, at least, which is to make biodiversity and extinction of animals and plants a big deal.
So in order to prevent extinction, and to maintain biodiversity, nations were expected to restrict the uses of their land and their water if these were areas where there was a lot of biodiversity. So that, and this has been done in Europe, I don’t know what’s happened in Canada, but the whole map of Europe, of the countries who belong to the EU, has been designated as either areas to be protected or areas not to be protected. And it looks like it’s almost about half and half.
And by 2030, 30 percent of Europe and the United States was supposed to be protected. And by 2050, 50 percent was supposed to be protected. And that meant that your farm could be designated an area that needs protection.
And this would allow the government, or possibly some other entity, to come in and tell you, oh, you can’t do X on your property because it’s causing us to lose species. So you may be growing, you know, a monocrop, you can’t do that anymore. This area needs to be rewilded.
And so people should be aware that areas of Europe and the United States are being rewilded, which means no more grazing, no more crops on those areas. And in the US, the government has given farmers who are in dire straits right now, the US has lost 160,000 farms in seven years, since 2017, up until last year, 160,000 farms. We are farming more than 20 million acres less than we were in 2017.
So farmers can’t make money farming at the moment, for a number of reasons, which are some of which are probably deliberate. And so the government has come in and said, we will pay you something, if you’ll give us an easement on your property, which in the future might restrict the uses of that property. So farmers desperate for cash, are turning over these easements to the government, which wants to either give them or sell them to NGOs, like the Wilderness Society, or a National Resources Defense Council, and allow those entities to then determine how the land may be used.
So this is another thing that’s going on, and was part of this whole WHO project. Although, you know, everyone was very quiet about it. So people didn’t understand what was going on.
GR: With all these farmers, you know, like losing their livelihoods, like what would balance out this need to protect certain systems with the ability of human beings to eat, you know?
MN: Well, that’s it. So the people like Bill Gates, and the World Economic Forum, and the World Health Organization had a plan. And the Director General of the WHO even said, agriculture is causing 30 percent of greenhouse gases, the release of greenhouse gases, it’s causing climate change.
And so we need to completely re-imagine, redo the world’s food systems. The plan was that basically, not much agriculture would go on, some would, and food would be produced in factories using patented processes. That was the plan.
And then if these folks like Bill Gates could gain control of food, they would really, you know, have the population over a barrel.
GR: Wow. So, I mean, is there a sense among the various member states that these sorts of things are happening? Or is there just something that compels them to go along regardless?
MN: So the meaningful negotiations of these treaties have all been conducted, you know, behind closed doors.
So we don’t know what they say to each other. But there were 10 drafts of the Pandemic Treaty that, you know, were written by member states. Some were written by the bureaucracy and the WHO.
You know, Bill Gates’ people were at the table for some of the negotiations, and they were not accepted. And so finally, a document did get drafted that got rid of all the shalls, all the musts, did not demand nations go along with all the terrible things that the WHO wanted them to go along with. But instead left the framework in place. So left the plan that we’re going to roll out vaccines, you know, without clinical trials in 100 days.
We’re going to monitor misinformation. We’re going to create a pathogen access and benefit sharing system, which is a crazy idea. I don’t know who came up with it, but it’s a very evil idea, saying that the World Health Organization would now develop a system, a network of laboratories that would collect and study the most dangerous pathogens, microorganisms in the world.
So Ebola, SARS, you know, coronaviruses, many others would all be sent to WHO laboratories. And one draft of the Pandemic Treaty said that the Director General of the WHO would appoint a group of scientists who would oversee gain-of-function research around the world, presumably. And they would share these pathogens with nations, with pharmaceutical companies, with research centers.
And if drugs or vaccines were developed that could be sold, the nation that supplied the dangerous microorganism would then be given essentially royalties. They would get benefits. And there was a promise that 10 percent of, at least 10 to 20 percent of production of drugs and vaccines by pharmaceutical manufacturers for these dangerous microorganisms would be given to the World Health Organization to be distributed for free or at low cost to poor nations.
So not a very generous offer, but that has been the offer. 10 percent, maybe up to 20 percent will be delivered free or at low cost to the WHO for further distribution. Meantime, the World Health Organization, even though this never got approved, made its own agreement with the government of Switzerland to create a Biohub.
Switzerland already had a maximum containment lab, a BSL-3, sorry, BSL-4 in Spitz, Switzerland. And so WHO has basically bought some of that lab and is developing its own collection of dangerous microorganisms right there without the nation states having ever gone along with it.
GR: What would happen if there was something wrong with the vaccine? I mean, how could the companies be held accountable?
MN: This was part of the treaty, that there would be no accountability.
They said this in different ways in different drafts, but in one of the drafts, they actually had three paragraphs in a row, each one specifying how companies, manufacturers would not be able to be held responsible. So in one paragraph, it said nations will have to come up with a method of managing liability. In another, it said basically they would be waiving liability, and then they claim they use some other language.
But the plan all along has been that, see, in order to roll out a vaccine in 100 days, it can’t possibly be tested for safety or efficacy, probably for efficacy either. And so there’s a tremendous risk rolling out any of these vaccines, and manufacturers refuse to take that risk. They’ll make the vaccines if you want them, just as they did for COVID or for the swine flu in 1976, but they will not accept liability, nor will their insurance companies.
And so there either has to be no liability or the government has to take over the liability. And the manufacturers don’t care who deals with, you know, they don’t care what this plan is, as long as they cannot be found liable for injuries. Obviously, this is a great way to make people sick with vaccines.
And if you collect, if you have a collection of dangerous microorganisms, which is widely shared around the world, and again, in one draft of the Pandemic Treaty, it actually said, once the WHO has shared these with nation states and manufacturers, these secondary entities who have received the microorganisms can then transfer them to third degree entities. They can then give them out to, or sell them to whoever they want. So what this really was, was first to disperse and proliferate deadly microorganisms around the world.
And then when a pandemic comes, you’ll never be able to figure out where it started because all these, you know, different entities have the same microorganism.
GR: Well, from your perspective, I mean, you’ve talked about biowarfare. And I think that we should take into consideration the whole concept of gain-of-function and PABS, you know, making sequences available online or to whoever, you know, some of them, the people, like anyone, I mean, maybe even a hacker or something.
And I mean, is this going to-
MN: Exactly. Yeah. So this was, thank you for reminding me.
So this was another part of many of the drafts of the treaty, which said that not only do nations have to give samples to the WHO, but they have to sequence, that nations were being asked all to set up genetic sequencing laboratories, which is ridiculous. In the middle of Africa, where you can’t get a urine specimen or a blood count, you need to build a very high-tech sequencing lab? And then you had to put the sequences of these microorganisms and viruses that you found online, where of course hackers can get them.
So the whole plan was a dreadful, dreadful plan. And I think, you know, once it really got exposed to the public, it was impossible for them to manage to get it passed. So what they did get passed was a framework that said, these are all the things we want to do, which were the same things they wanted to do earlier, except none of them are forced on nations.
So the nations don’t have to censor, they don’t have to send microorganisms, blah, blah, blah. They don’t have to do any of it, but the framework is in place. And if the nations do go ahead and ratify this, if they complete it, it’s not quite complete because they could not get agreement on the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, which was donating microorganisms to a WHO lab network.
And then if you’re lucky, getting some benefits later, that’s the PABS system, P-A-B-S, pathogen access and benefit sharing system. They could not get agreement on that. So they said, we’ll put that in a separate annex and we’ll add it to the treaty.
So what nations did at the end of May was to provisionally adopt the Pandemic Treaty in its watered down version with a proviso that it cannot be fully adopted until this PABS annex is part of it. And that has yet to be negotiated. Once it’s negotiated, they have to vote on it again.
And then nations will have to ratify the document before it’s actually able to be enforced and go into force.
GR: So is there like a window in time where people could reverse the damage or some of the damage being brought about by this agreement?
MN: Yes. So what the WHO is hoping is that they will negotiate the PABS agreement over the next year.
There are yearly meetings of the members of the World Health Organization, which is called the World Health Assembly. And they’re hoping that by next May, they will have the PABS agreement in place. They will vote on the entire Pandemic Treaty.
And then nations will have a period of time to ratify. They will need to go through, because it’s a treaty, they have to go through a formal ratification. And then a month after 60 nations have ratified, that treaty will go into force.
So we have at least a year to get rid of this PABS annex and say that the proliferation of biological weapons, which is really what these dangerous microorganisms are, goes against other international law, such as the Biological Weapons Convention. And something that was put forward at the UN Security Council and said that the proliferation of biological weapons is not something the world’s people want. And we need to get rid of this and ideally get rid of the WHO, because it’s a completely captured agency that really is a net negative value to the world.
It does a few good things and it does a lot of bad things. And I think we need to end it and start fresh with a clean slate and be very clear that the World Health Organization, any new health organization, a global health organization, will not have any ability to give orders to nations or create pathogen access and benefit sharing systems or any of this other nonsense. We need to get rid of the idea of One Health, which was designed to take much of the world and put it into the health basket so it could be managed by the World Health Organization.
So those are the things that need to happen. The United States is already there. Argentina has also said it’s getting out of the WHO.
So it’d be ideal if many other countries exit the WHO or stop paying their dues and just say, look, we no longer find this organization to be of value to our nation. And it’s a threat.
GR: Yeah, well, I just want to get you and maybe correspond to something that I heard recently.
There was a fellow who was talking about, you know, in very negative terms about the WHO. And he said it’s worse than that. It’s actually a criminal cartel, given the way they’ve been dispensed.
I mean, we mentioned it was a private, public-private partnership. But you did mention that they did some good, they did do some good things. But as you said, they’ve got to be completely overhauled and so on.
Do you see it as a criminal cartel? Or is that pushing things a bit?
MN: Well, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know what the definition of a criminal cartel is. I would say that the way these documents have been negotiated, the nations of the Global South have been very unhappy. You know, the negotiations have been taken over by the bureaucracy within the WHO.
The Bill Gates people have managed to weasel their way in, officially even. So they are stakeholders. And they, as they and the Wellcome Trust people, you know, did a lot of management of how the COVID pandemic was to be handled throughout the world.
The same thing is happening, these private funders are having a lot of influence over what comes out of the WHO. For instance, even after everybody knew that SARS-CoV-2 could be transmitted via aerosol, so if you were in a room with someone, even though you weren’t within six feet, but if you were in a closed room with someone that you could catch it from them, it took like a year and a half for the WHO to admit that because the people behind the WHO did not want to admit that. They wanted a different story.
They also didn’t want you to know that when you were walking outside, you weren’t going to catch it. Unless someone spit in your face, it was almost impossible to catch it because there’s a breeze and the air is being diluted very much. And Bill Gates has been the biggest donor to the UN.
Certainly when the US pulled out during the end of Trump’s first administration, Bill Gates was the biggest donor to the UN. The UK and Germany have also been large donors. But if you add GAVI and CEPI, which are organizations that Bill Gates founded, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, most years Bill Gates is the WHO’s biggest donor.
He also has managed to get himself diplomatic immunity. And for all his GAVI officials in Switzerland, the country where the WHO is located and where GAVI is centered, he and all his high staff have been given diplomatic immunity because of these donations. So if he were to be accused of a crime in the US, he could get on his private plane, fly to Switzerland, and they would not be able to touch him.
The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.
The programme is also broadcast weekly (Monday, 1-2pm ET) by the Progressive Radio Network in the US.
The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca
Notes:
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
Source link