COVID-19
WHO health treaty a convenient cover for more government overreach: Bruce Pardy

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Bruce Pardy
The updated regulations will transform the WHO from an advisory body to the directing mind and will of global health.
Last September, the CBC ran a hit piece on Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis after she warned that a new international pandemic treaty could undermine Canadian sovereignty over public health.
Catherine Cullen, the CBC journalist, quoted three academics to debunk Lewis’ claims. It’s nonsense, said Stephen Hoffman of York University. “So far from the truth that it’s actually hard to know where to begin,” said Kelley Lee of Simon Fraser University. It’s fearmongering, said Timothy Caulfield of the University of Alberta, as no treaty can suspend the Canadian Constitution. That last part is correct, but Lewis is right to be concerned. Under the guise of international cooperation, governments are devising a cover to enact even tougher public health restrictions next time a crisis is declared.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is drafting a new pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations, which since 2005 have set out countries’ obligations for managing the international spread of disease. Member countries of the World Health Assembly are expected to approve both in May. The agreement would establish governing principles for an international pandemic management regime, and the updated regulations will transform the WHO from an advisory body to the directing mind and will of global health.
Technocrats learned a lot from COVID. Not how to avoid policy mistakes, but how to exercise control. Public authorities discovered that they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their businesses, made them wear masks and herded them to vaccination clinics. In Canada and elsewhere, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history. If the new proposals are anything to go by, next time may be worse.
Under the new health regulations, the WHO will have the authority to declare public health emergencies. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations.” WHO measures “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties … (who) shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”
In other words, governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. They will make private citizens and domestic businesses comply too. Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions and more will be on the table. Under the draft agreement, countries would commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.” During COVID, despite governments’ best efforts, dissidents managed to seed doubts about the mainstream pandemic narrative. In the future, things may be different.
WHO officials and proponents of the proposals won’t admit to any of this out loud, of course, and you won’t hear much about these plans in the mainstream press. But the draft proposals, at least the ones released, say so in black and white.
Many national governments will be on board with the plan. That may seem counterintuitive since it appears to diminish their control, but more valuable to them is the cover that WHO directives will provide for their own heavy hands. Officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing international obligations. Binding WHO recommendations leave them no choice, they will say. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.”
That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO directives would not be directly enforceable in Canadian courts. But national governments can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can craft domestic laws accordingly. That too is an exercise of sovereignty. They can undertake to tie their own hands.
Provinces might decide to go along also. Provinces have jurisdiction over many orders that the WHO might recommend. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, quarantine orders and other public health restrictions are primarily provincial matters. The feds control air travel, international borders, the military, drug approvals and the federal workforce. The federal government’s power to make treaties cannot oust provincial legislative jurisdiction, but WHO cover for restrictive measures would appeal to provinces as well.
The WHO cannot suspend the Constitution. International norms, however, can influence how courts read constitutional provisions, and the meaning of the Constitution is fluid, as our Supreme Court is fond of insisting. If norms change, so might the court’s interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The WHO’s proposals can’t define Canadian constitutional rights, but they aren’t irrelevant either.
Proponents would deny that the WHO is seizing control or undermining democracy. Technically they are correct. National governments must approve the new international pandemic plan. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. And not all countries may be keen on all the details. The WHO proposals call for massive financial and technical transfers to developing countries. But climate change pacts do too, and these were embraced by rich countries, unable to resist the virtue signaling and validation of their own climate boondoggles.
States that sign on to the WHO proposals retain the sovereignty to change their minds, but leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the United Kingdom belonged to the European Union, it agreed to be subject to EU rules on all manner of things. It remained a sovereign country and could decide to get out from under the EU’s thumb. Brexit threatened to tear the country apart. Having the legal authority to withdraw does not mean that a country is politically able to do so. Or that its elites are willing, even if that’s what its people want.
The WHO proposals prescribe authority without accountability, but they do not eliminate sovereignty. Instead, national governments are in on the game. When your own government aims to manage you, national sovereignty is no protection anyway.
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe, professor of law at Queen’s University and senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
COVID-19
CDC Vaccine Safety Director May Have Destroyed Records, Says Sen. Ron Johnson

Dr. Shimabukuro implicated in concealing an 82% miscarriage rate among COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women in NEJM study — records reportedly “remain lost.”
The New York Post has just reported:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doctor in charge of monitoring reports of adverse COVID-19 vaccine reactions has been accused by a Republican senator of mishandling and possibly deleting key records.
Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) struggled to find records belonging to Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, while trying to comply with a subpoena from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for vaccine safety data.
“HHS officials recently informed me that Dr. Shimabukuro’s records remain lost and, potentially, removed from HHS’s email system altogether,” Johnson wrote in a Wednesday letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and acting HHS watchdog Juliet Hodgkins.
“Any attempt to obstruct or interfere with my investigatory efforts would be grounds for contempt of Congress,” Johnson wrote Wednesday.
Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a six-figure fine and 12 months in prison.
Under the Federal Records Act, government officials are required to preserve materials “made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business.”
Johnson is calling upon the FBI, DOJ and HHS Inspector General’s Office to probe whether Shimabukuro and other federal health officials “deleted or destroyed official agency records.”
Dr. Shimabukuro is the first author on fraudulent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine paper titled, Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons:
A study by Thorp et al comprehensively exposes how Shimabukuro et al manipulated the data to make the mRNA shots appear safe for pregnant women. Re-analysis of the data revealed an astonishing 82% spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) rate in COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women:
The most blatant example of data-doctoring, eerily similar to the fraudulent Pfizer study conducted during the same time frame, was published by NEJM in June, 2021 [85]. In a study intended to evaluate vaccine safety during pregnancy, Shimabukuro et al. followed outcomes in 3958 vaccinated pregnant women between mid-December 2020 and the end of February 2021.
During the two and-a-half-month period 827 women completed their pregnancy of which 712 (86.1%) were live births and 115 (13.9%) pregnancy losses. Of the pregnancy losses, 104 were spontaneous abortions the vast majority of which (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.
Upon review of the data, however, 700 (84.6%) of women weren’t vaccinated until the third trimester, long after the spontaneous abortions would have occurred. Nonetheless, authors included these 700 third-trimester vaccinations in the denominator when they calculated the spontaneous abortion rate.
Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors pegged the spontaneous abortion rate at 12.6% (104/827) when, in fact, it was actually 82% (104/127). This astonishing miscarriage rate is equivalent to the efficacy of the so-called abortion pill, RU486, which carries an FDA black box warning to alert consumers to major drug risks.
And yet Shimabukuro et al. concluded there were no obvious safety concerns. This is disinformation plain and simple and cannot be written off as accident. There were 21 named authors on the study, 8 of whom were physicians, including 3 Ob-Gyn specialists, and others with expertise in public health and epidemiology. It is inconceivable that an error of this magnitude could escape the scrutiny of such a stellar cast. And how could it have been overlooked by the NEJM editorial staff and reviewers unless by intention?
Provocatively, all 21 authors report affiliations with either CDC or the FDA. And NEJM, the flagship journal of the medical-industrial complex, has taken a strong pro-vax stance that can hardly be called objective. Shimabukuro’s thinly-veiled attempt to downplay the risks of COVID-19 vaccines and mitigate vaccine hesitancy is yet another research scandal laden with conflicts of interest and intent to deceive.
This may explain why Dr. Shimabukuro would seek to obscure or delete records. His potential involvement in the deliberate manipulation of critical safety data on COVID-19 mRNA injections during pregnancy carries grave implications—resulting in immeasurable harm to mothers and their unborn children worldwide.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
COVID-19
Fauci, top COVID officials have criminal referral requests filed against them in 7 states

From LifeSiteNews
The filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On April 8, 2025, the Vires Law Group, in collaboration with the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, submitted formal criminal referral requests to the Attorneys General of Arizona and Pennsylvania. These filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent public health and government officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The referrals are based on detailed evidence—including the stories of over 80 victims and families—and allege that policies such as lethal hospital protocols, the denial of life-saving treatments, and systemic medical coercion led to widespread injury and death.
Similar filings have been submitted on behalf of constituents in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, marking a coordinated nationwide effort to pursue justice through state and local authorities:
Individuals Named in the Referral Requests:
- Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
- Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
- Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
- Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
- Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
- Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
- Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA (Arizona only)
- Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine (Arizona only)
- Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
- Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
- Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
- Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
- Administrators and healthcare providers at various hospital systems and care facilities in Arizona and Pennsylvania
Combined List of Alleged Crimes Across Both States:
- Murder
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- Negligent Homicide
- Assault / Aggravated Assault / Simple Assault
- Recklessly Endangering Another Person
- Vulnerable Adult Abuse / Emotional Abuse
- Neglect and Abuse of a Care-Dependent Person
- Kidnapping
- Trafficking of Persons for Forced Labor or Services
- Criminal Coercion to Restrict Another’s Freedom
- Operating a Corrupt Organization
- Violations of State Anti-Racketeering Laws
- Terrorism
At the time of the release, two county-level criminal investigations are reportedly already underway in other states. The legal teams and victims involved assert that accountability must come through state or local prosecution, given the lack of federal action. These filings represent a significant national effort to seek justice on behalf of families who lost loved ones and were denied proper care during the pandemic.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Mortgage Mayhem: How Rising Interest Rates Are Squeezing Alberta Homeowners
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta takes big step towards shorter wait times and higher quality health care
-
Justice2 days ago
Canadian government sued for forcing women to share spaces with ‘transgender’ male prisoners
-
Business1 day ago
Stocks soar after Trump suspends tariffs
-
COVID-191 day ago
Biden Admin concealed report on earliest COVID cases from 2019
-
MAiD2 days ago
Disability rights panel calls out Canada, US states pushing euthanasia on sick patients
-
COVID-192 days ago
Randy Hillier wins appeal in Charter challenge to Covid lockdowns
-
Business2 days ago
Trump raises China tariffs to 125%, announces 90-day pause for countries who’ve reached out to negotiate