WHO do they think they are? Draconian World Pandemic Treaty expected to be signed by 194 countries next week.
The wheels are in motion for the World Health Organization to dictate exactly how each nation responds to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic. They will be allowed to make sweeping policies and implement mandates on a global scale, and the US is driving portions of this treaty by submitting several amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR).
This treaty would give the WHO’s Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.
These amendments, which will be legally binding if passed by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO), set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed.
Not surprisingly, 20 world leaders are already calling for the treaty, including Tedros, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, and compared the post-Covid world to the post-WWII period, saying similar co-operation is now needed to "dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and co-operation - namely peace, prosperity, health and security."
Australian PM Scott Morrison is the latest leader to express support for a “pandemic treaty”.
The stated intention of the WHO is to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
Dr. Robert Malone, The Unity Project’s Chief Medical and Regulatory Officer provided an informative summary of the WHO treaty from Global Health Responsibility Agency founder Dr. Silvia Behrendt in a recent Substack. You can read the excerpt below:
Why the Centralization of Health via the WHO Should Be Resisted by Civil Society
Dr. Silvia Behrendt is the founder of the Global Health Responsibility Agency for accountability and transparency for health decisions. She was previously a consultant to the WHO on the IHR and wrote her Ph.D. about the executive authority of the WHO-DC during PHEIC.
This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on May 9, 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and on Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in the Newsroom.
Background
The International Health Regulations (IHR) was adopted by 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005. They enable the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) if it decides that an infectious disease outbreak has occurred in a member state, but with the consent of the member state. The World Council for Health (WCH) acknowledges this aspect of the current regulations because it recognizes the sovereignty of nations that adopted the IHR. But that is about to change.
Key Issues to Understand
On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General – even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20 January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.
The proposed IHR amendments also cede control to WHO “regional directors,” who are given the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC). Moreover, the proposed amendments allow the Director-General to ring an international alarm bell, by unilaterally issuing an “Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).”
Properly understood, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new pandemic treaty.
Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59
Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
The World Council for Health’s Position on Proposed IHR Amendments
The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state – and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model – is the expert guide to better health and wellness.
These proposed IHR amendments will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022. The official agenda item is 16.2. It is not clear if the event will be broadcast for transparency. Thus, the WCH believes that it is essential to campaign against the proposed amendments and to build alternative pathways.
Why People Must Take Action Together
Due to the influence of private money at the WHO, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy stated that the corruption of the WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time.” This is particularly true in relation to WHO drug recommendations, including its “list of essential medicines,” which a growing number of people believe is biased and unreliable.
Moreover, even though WHO’s documents highlight voice, agency, and social participation as drivers of equity and democracy, it is unknown World Health Assembly delegates who get to make decisions for us. To date, 13 days away from the World Health Assembly 75, the secretive list of each country’s delegates has been not been published. This is censorship.
Given consistent evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by various industries, its usefulness as a guide to public health must be critically re-evaluated, while alternative paradigms and models for ethical health guidance and human rights are built.
Global #StopTheWho Campaign Activated
It is going to take each and all of us to campaign against the power grab through the IHR Amendments, this May, and onwards to November – just six months away. In the best campaigns for human rights, multi-pronged strategies are effective. Here are some ideas:
Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.
Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs
You will also find #StopTheWho campaign resources uploaded to the World Council for Health website in the next few days.
Collectively, we are in the greatest awakening in history. Given our experiences over the last 2 years, we know that we are the ones we have been waiting for. If not us, then who? If not now, then when? Let us join hands in taking back our health, our freedom, and our power.
In Unity for Health, Freedom, and Sovereignty,
World Council for Health (www.worldcouncilforhealth.org)
Is this a futile protest? What will the action we take now actually matter? What can WE literally DO to put a dent in these malevolent agendas? Its already a done deal.