On 20 May 2021. The Council of the EU adopted a decision expressing support for the start of negotiations within the WHO on an international anti-pandemic treaty. The Council decision is intended to ensure EU participation in negotiations on issues that fall under EU competence and, in the longer term, the EU's eventual accession to the international instrument.

According to the EU Council, the treaty would assist international efforts to enhance global health security - particularly in the context of preparedness and response to health crises - based on lessons learned from the pandemic.

On December 1, 2021. 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached consensus to begin the process of developing and negotiating a convention, agreement, or other international instrument in accordance with the WHO Constitution to strengthen pandemic prevention and preparedness.

Among the most important benefits were identified better observation of pandemic threats, i.e.: risk monitoring and, in particular, exchange of knowledge on new infectious diseases transmissible from animals to humans. According to the initiators of the treaty, the above goals can be achieved by:

1. increase laboratory and surveillance capacity in all countries necessary to identify animal diseases,

2. enhancing collaboration between research centers around the world,

3. improve coordination of international financing of core capabilities,

4. introduce a more effective alert system at more alert levels commensurate with the severity of the health threat.

The above principles, according to WHO, would increase the transparency and legitimacy of austerity and other health measures. Digital technologies, innovative data collection and sharing tools, and predictive analytics can facilitate real-time communication and early warning, which in turn will enable faster responses.

5 Strengthen and streamline global health supply and service chains to eliminate health threats. All countries should have uninterrupted access to essential medical supplies, medicines and equipment from around the world.

6. global coordination of effective stockpiling for rapid and effective pandemic response.

7. to provide a basis for better communication and information to citizens and to enable effective instruments to combat disinformation about pandemics worldwide.

According to a communication from the EU Council, all WHO Member States decided that in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the difficulties in implementing common solutions to counter its development, work will be undertaken to develop a single, common course of action (instrument) to efficiently counter future outbreaks.

It should be pointed out that the main source of information on the potential risk of another pandemic is WHO and Bill Gates, who is currently the dominant sponsor of the institution in question. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body is scheduled to hold its first meeting in Geneva on March 1, 2022 (to agree on working modalities and timelines) and a second meeting by August 1, 2022. (to discuss progress on the working draft). A report on this work will then be presented to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the instrument to be adopted by 2024 at the latest.

The WHO believes that the COVID-19 pandemic posed a global challenge and that no single government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics on its own, which is why it is so important to create a single effective instrument in the form of a convention, agreement or other international instrument that is legally binding under international law on WHO Member States for uniform pandemic solutions issued by WHO. This in turn will enable countries around the world to strengthen national, regional and global responses to future pandemics. In WHO's view, such arrangements will allow for sustainable and long-term implementation of the principles of health integration in all relevant policy areas, political commitment at the level of world leaders or governments, support integration in public and private sector activities at all levels, and contribute to a unified approach to health across the planet.

It should be pointed out that the real purpose of this initiative is:

1. creating a uniform model concerning the solutions that the states-signatories of such an instrument will be obliged to apply in the event of a subsequent pandemic declaration by WHO,

2. recognition of the overarching and binding role of WHO organizations in implementing concrete solutions to combat infectious disease epidemics,

3. giving the WHO the power to issue binding decisions to member countries that require the country in question to follow a specific strategy to combat a potential disease threat,

4. depriving member countries of an important element of sovereignty,

5. depriving member countries of full control over financial issues in relation to pandemic control,

6. introduce sanctions for violations of the WHO pandemic narrative and pandemic control model by introducing international relations consequences and financial penalties,

7. introduce instruments to combat "disinformation" by removing any content that is inconsistent with the official WHO narrative through the mainstream media,

8. eliminating all alternative treatments for disease other than those recommended by the WHO under the agreement.

This, in our opinion, based on the current health and financial situation in the world, opens up almost unlimited possibilities:

• massive financial fraud,
• Giving a private WHO institution even unlimited power over health issues at the expense of the sovereignty of signatory countries,
• absolute subordination to the decisions of the WHO, with a total lack of control over the validity and reliability of the assessments of the situation that form the basis of the decisions issued by the WHO,
• opportunities to provide endless profits to pharmaceutical companies,
• government funding of morally questionable medical research and experiments and the potential coercion of citizens to undergo these experiments,
• shaping the new human and promoting transhumanism,
• introducing total digital control of society under the pretext of fighting for our health,
• introduction of unlimited censorship, violation of civil rights, freedom of speech, including through the expression of their own views,
• fighting alternative treatments that are inconsistent with the WHO narrative and the interests of its donors in the form of pharmaceutical companies.

It should be pointed out that currently less than 20 percent of the WHO budget comes from member governments. More than 80 percent are voluntary and largely earmarked contributions from public or private donors, primarily foundations and pharmaceutical companies.

Just over 14 % of the total budget currently comes from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation has been the largest private donor for several years and has given $2.5 billion to WHO since the turn of the millennium. In 2016 and 2017 alone, the annual amount was $629 million - much of it for vaccination campaigns.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated a total of $1.6 billion to the WHO to help stop the spread of poliomyelitis - polio, while at the same time it has brought very high profits to pharmaceutical companies, causing their share prices to soar, and whose representatives sit on the board of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the above causing their share prices to soar. This, in turn, has also benefited the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which owns stakes in pharmaceutical groups GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Gilead and Pfizer, among others.

Almost six years ago, there was a fundamental structural change within WHO in favor of the private sector. Until then, only non-profit organizations could participate in WHO's working groups and task forces, where the organization's most important decisions are made. By decision of the WHO General Assembly since May 2016, commercial companies can influence strategic decisions in its bodies.

According to the applicable legislation, including Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 and Article 24 of this Directive, "Member States shall ensure that contracting authorities take appropriate measures to effectively prevent, identify and eliminate conflicts of interest when they arise in connection with the conduct of procurement procedures, to prevent possible distortion of competition and to ensure equal treatment of all economic operators.

The notion of conflict of interest shall cover at least any situation where the members of staff of the contracting authority or of a procurement service provider acting on behalf of the contracting authority involved in the conduct of a procurement procedure or likely to influence the outcome of that procedure have, directly or indirectly, a financial, economic or other personal interest that may be perceived as prejudicing their impartiality and independence in relation to the procurement procedure."

The cited provisions relate to the eligibility of expenditures under EU Funds, but are analogously applicable in the present case.

In connection with the above provisions, the notion of conflict of interest should not be considered exclusively on the grounds of the Guidelines on the eligibility of expenditure under the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund for 2014-2020, as the indicated Guidelines refer exclusively to personal and capital ties, which in particular should be avoided when awarding contracts. The use of the term "in particular" also means that the catalog of cases of personal and capital ties described in the Guidelines is an open catalog, which means that the occurrence of other cases of personal and capital ties, as well as the lack of impartiality and objectivity in the award of a contract, indicates a conflict of interest.

Similar provisions are included in the Communication from the European Commission providing guidance on avoiding and managing conflicts of interest under the Financial Regulation (2021/C 121/01) and the Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Funds and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

It should be categorically pointed out that WHO as an entity sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that are manufacturers of vaccines, as well as the main promoter of vaccinations Bill Gates, by the decision of the General Assembly of WHO, commercial companies can, since May 2016, influence strategic decisions in these bodies, which remains in an obvious and real conflict of interest, and the transfer under Article 89 or 90 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of any powers of the Organs of our State, in favor of WHO, will constitute an exhaustive act stylized in Article 127 of the Penal Code (coup d'état). 

In view of the above threats, in accordance with the content of Article 5 of the Polish Constitution, cited: "The Republic of Poland shall safeguard the independence and inviolability of its territory, ensure freedom and human and civil rights and the security of its citizensWe call on the government of the Republic of Poland to "respect the environment, preserve our national heritage and ensure environmental protection in accordance with the principle of sustainable development. We call for immediate objection to the content of this Treaty, immediate termination of the authorization to conduct these negotiations on behalf of the Republic of Poland, and withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).

On behalf of the Citizens of the Republic of Poland