Last week, the World Health Assembly reached an agreement on a draft Pandemic Agreement.  It will be put forward for adoption next month.  However,  the London Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation says that international agreements are not binding on the UK. 

The problem for British citizens is that a section included in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] empowers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, currently Wes Streeting, to adopt or give effect to “any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.”

To stop WHO’s nefarious pandemic agenda being implemented in the UK, this section, section 45 of the Public Health Act, needs to be repealed.

The World Health Assembly (“WHA”) reached a significant milestone on 16 April 2025 by finalising a draft global agreement aimed at controlling how countries prepare for and respond to pandemics. This agreement, known as the Pandemic Agreement, will be submitted to the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025 for adoption.

Note:  The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years.  It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”). 

As Dr. Meryl Nass noted, most of the paragraphs of the Pandemic Agreement that began with “shall,” implying that nations “must obey,” have been removed from the draft.  “So, although the delegates hammer the fact that this is a ‘legally binding’ treaty, it really is not.”

Although the draft provides that national sovereignty is guaranteed, it comes with a proviso: it is subject to “obligations under international law.”  The draft Agreement states:

9. … respecting States’ rights to implement health measures in accordance with their relevant national law and obligations under international law, and recalling World Health Assembly Decision SSA2(5).

Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, World Health Organisation, 16 April 2025, pg. 4

Dr. Nass also pointed out, “The language now includes climate change, which could be a justification for declaring a [climate] emergency … And while this draft restricts pandemics and “public health emergencies of international concern” to infectious diseases, it also defines a public health risk that could include climate change, gun violence, etc … [And the document] still says nations will promote the One Health approach.”

WHO’s nefarious One Health initiative integrates human, animal and environmental health across the organisation. The initiative includes collaboration with the United Nations (“UN”) Food and Agriculture Organisation (“FAO”), the UN Environment Programme (“UNEP”) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (“WOAH”) as part of a One Health Quadripartite.  The initiative is all-encompassing and will infiltrate and dictate all aspects of our lives.

Additionally, and unsurprisingly, national governments all go along with censoring citizens, Dr. Nass said.  The draft states: “15. Recognising the importance of building trust and ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatisation.”

By sheer coincidence, at the same time that WHA was negotiating the draft, WHO was pushing for a permanent alliance with technology companies to control digital health messaging and behaviour.  On 15 April, a day before the WHA finalised the draft Pandemic Agreement, Andy Pattison, WHO’s Team Lead for Digital Channels at, said he wants to create a “health online collective” to replicate the cooperation seen during the covid “pandemic” on a constant basis.

As Reclaim the Net reported, the goal is to use this alliance to manipulate behaviour and influence decision-making, rather than just disseminating information, with the help of technology companies and healthcare influencers.

On Monday, the UK Chapter of The Weston A. Price Foundation posted a thread on Twitter (now X) explaining why Britons should ignore these international agreements and treaties and instead focus on repealing section 45 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984]. 

The Act forms the basis of various legislation connected to the management of infectious diseases in the United Kingdom, including measures taken during the covid “pandemic.”  Section 45 of the Act gives the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to give effect in the UK to any international agreement, i.e. one person, the Secretary of State, can adopt WHO’s Pandemic Agreement that will significantly and destructively impact all our lives.

We have republished Weston A. Price Foundation’s Twitter thread below.

Ignore the Treaties and Focus on the Public Health Act

By Weston A. Price Foundation, London Chapter

The Secretary of State is empowered to adopt any international health regulations by s.45 of the 1984 Public Health Act.  It is this, and this alone, and not any international treaty that binds the UK.

Ignore the treaties and focus on repealing s.45.

The constitutional principle on treaties is that they only impact international relations. They have no effect on how we are governed, which can only be altered by statutes – no matter how much they may claim to the contrary.

See R Miller v DExEU [2017] UKSC 5:

Also see Art.1 1688 Bill of Rights which confirms that no treaty or government proclamation can change our laws: “That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.”

Because, the law of England is divided into three parts: common law, statute law and custom. But the King’s proclamation (including government guidance and treaties) is none of them.

See Case of Proclamation [1610] EWHC KB J22:

Laws may only be enacted by the Authority of the King and Parliament, not by proclamation or by international treaty agreement.

See the Prince of Orange’s 1688 Declaration of Reason that preceded the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights:

For these reasons, any discussion about pandemic response that focuses on international treaties, paying no regard to the urgent need to repeal s.45 of the 1984 Public Health Act and surviving coronavirus legislation is a distraction that must be resisted.

Did the British establishment plan lockdown so far ahead, but they chose section 45 because they knew that the 45th president of the United States of America would implement lockdown?

#image_title

” data-image-caption=”

#image_title

” data-medium-file=”https://i0.wp.com/expose-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FtApr22a.png?fit=300%2C169&ssl=1″ data-large-file=”https://i0.wp.com/expose-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FtApr22a.png?fit=639%2C359&ssl=1″>

Follow Daily Expose on Telegram