Discover more from Scientific Progress
Will Tedros ever go to jail?
Impossible. WHO's over law. Get ready for the WHO helmets.
One case is worth a thousand words
10 May 2021, @doctorsoumya tweeted “Safety and efficacy are important when using any drug for a new indication. @WHO recommends against the use of Ivermectin for #COVID19 except within clinical trials.”
25 May 2021, Indian Bar Association sent a legal notice to the WHO Scientist for mass murder by blocking life saving treatment: “accusing her of causing the deaths of many Indian citizens by misleading them about the effect of Ivermectin, which she stated did not work against Covid-19. As a result, the use of Ivermectin to cure Covid-19 was stopped and Covid cases exploded with deaths increasing ten-fold. In the provinces where Ivermectin was used—Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa— Covid cases declined sharply by 98%, 97%, 94%, and 86%.” 
“After receiving the notice, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan deleted her tweet. This has proved the hollowness of the WHO’s recommendation against Ivermectin for COVID-19. The dishonesty of WHO and the act of Dr. Soumya Swaminathan in deleting her contentious tweet was witnessed by citizens across the world, as the news got a wide coverage on social media. By deleting the tweet, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan has proved her mala fide intentions.” 
Of course, nothing happened.  Mass murder? WHO officials are unimputable.
WHO doesn’t abide by any Human Rights legal system
Since inception, the UN systema was designed to be unaccountable, an organization above all sovereign nations:
“Since the U.N.’s founding, its need for immunity from the jurisdiction of member states courts has been understood as necessary to achieve its purposes. Immunities, however, conflict with an individual’s right to a remedy and the law’s ordinary principles of responsibility for causing harm… Absolute immunity stands in contrast to the U.N.’s programmatic promotion of the Rule of Law and to the standards expected of member states.” 
They “enjoy complete immunity from every form of legal process under Article III Section 4 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations… by virtue of the United Nations Privileges & Immunities Act, 1947. By virtue of notification dated 16th December, 1948. By virtue of notification dated 16th December, 1948, the provisions of the said Act were extended to the defendants. This immunity is further fortified by an agreement dated 9th November, 1949 between the defendants and Government of India which specifically confers immunity upon the defendants from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case this immunity is expressly waived by the Director General of the defendant organisation. Admittedly, the Director General of defendant - organisation has not till date waived this immunity.” 
“The principle that everybody is liable for his debts does not apply to international governmental organizations. The liability of governments is not limited when they perform some of their tasks through an international organization, unless there is an express provision to this effect.” 
“The United Nations legislates to limit its Liability”: they “use their immunity in order to avoid litigation in a national court or some other inappropriate forum.”  Disputes are solved by arbitration, which of course is defined by the UN system in its favour. For example, the UN has limited compensation to 100 000 USD. 
· No UN agency has been successfully charged for funding, promoting and providing abortion or abortifacients in countries where it was illegal.
· Nothing happened to WHO staff for distributing tainted vaccines in Kenya for stealth depopulation through infertilization.
· Food for sex scandal: UN staff, including 3300 pedophiles, responsible for 60 000 rapes in a decade… “predatory” abusers used development jobs to get to vulnerable women and children… “if you wear a Unicef T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to”.  In refugee camps, corn soya was traded as ‘a kilo for sex’. “If the true size and scale of abuse became known to the public, then the UN would lose its funding.” Full impunity: none condemned. UN alleged ‘zero tolerance’ means firing an employee, only if unavoidable, yet the UN grants impunity from criminal prosecution: “UN civil staff has legal immunity in all countries in the world, including their own.”  In 2017 “Ten of these 14 cases were handled exclusively by the UN, leaving potential victims in the position of having to convince UN personnel to prosecute their fellows.” 
· Blue Helmets  : 100 000 UN Peacekeepers costing 7 billion USD/yr got away with rape and sexual exploitation: 100 ran a child sex ring in Haiti over a decade. None ever jailed. 2000 cases of sexual abuse. Sex slaves: under-age girls were being kidnapped, tortured and forced into prostitution for UN and NATO personnel in Kosovo.  10 rapes per month in Africa.  The French troops in Central Africa, “tied up four girls and forced them to perform sex acts with animals”. 
Also, there were no sanctions for failing to defend the defenceless: in 1995 Srebrenica “Serb forces executed more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys. As the town fell, a Dutch battalion of U.N. peacekeepers assigned to protect the area fired not a single shot.”  The same had happened in the 1994 Rwandan genocide where 2000 were left to be machete-butchered in a UN area, where they had fled with the illusion of protection.  Troops have immunity in all countries except if prosecuted by their own, which is very rare and less severe than in domestic cases, such as the Uruguayan troops systematically raping a child in Haiti, serving three months in their national prisons for the crime of “private violence”. 
· White helmets: ‘Organ traders, terrorists & looters’
· Unpunished “sexual abuse and exploitation by UN personnel” is so widespread that the UN established a Trust Fund to compensate victims, as if abuse was part of the job or an assumed behavior. It’s like spiting on the victims face: only 24 member states voluntary contributed 4 million USD, about 60 dollars per reported rape (the majority are unreported), half of what a US prostitute charges.  False flag to attract and deactivate hot cases?: Code Blue, the NGO focusing in UN sexual abuse, is funded by the globalists, and run by a UN career woman promoting the 2030 agenda. 
De facto, the UN and its agencies are above the law of the land, completely unaccountable.  All efforts to solve this deliberate loophole in international law have been sabotaged by the UN organizations. 
This gives an idea of what the WHO helmets could do in any country without any accountability.
Now you are ready to understand the threat of the International PLANdemic Treaty, where nations will give sovereignty to the WHO:
 Boon, KE. The United Nations as Good Samaritan: Immunity and Responsibility. 1 Jan 2016 Chicago Journal of International Law Vol 16 Number 2 Art 2 https://cjil.uchicago.edu/publication/united-nations-good-samaritan-immunity-and-responsibility
 United Nations Resolution 41/210 Limitation of damages in respect of acts occurring within the Headquarters district.
 Shifa M. Rape Under the Blue Helmets. Sep 2019 William and Mary law review 10:41-81
 https://aidsfreeworld.org/about funded by https://www.tides.org/about/ founded by Drummond Pike and funded by freemasons like Soros: https://capitalresearch.org/article/tides-legal-laundering-who-is-drummond-pike-one/
formerly Tides Canada https://makeway.org/impact-story/great-bear-and-makeway-an-uncommon-origin-story/ where Pike is honorary director https://makeway.org/about-us/team/
 Suzuki E, Nanwani S. Responsibility of international organizations: The accountability mechanisms of multilateral development banks. Jan 2005. Michigan Journal of International Law. Vol 27, Is 1.
 Reinisch A, International Organizations before National Courts. May 2000 Cambridge studies in international and comparative law. ISBN: 9780521653268 http://cambridge.org/0521653266 https://epdf.tips/international-organizations-before-national-courts.html
Gal-Or, N. Responsibility of the WTO for Breach of an International Obligation under the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations. 2013 Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien De Droit International, 50, 197-242. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800010845