‘All Eyes on the WHO’: Critics Warn of Power Grab on Eve of UN Pandemic Declaration Vote
Amid objections from civil society groups worldwide, the United Nations is poised to hold a consequential “Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response” vote tomorrow that would greatly expand the World Health Organization’s powers during public health emergencies.
Story at a glance:
In May 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted amendments to International Health Regulations (IHR), time for individual countries to turn around and reject them is running out.
A whole new set of potentially dangerous amendments is in the works, the latest draft is not available to the public and the available drafts are nefarious.
On Sept. 20, the United Nations (U.N.) plans to adopt a “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response” promoting the need to spend an additional 30 billion every year on “global health emergency preparedness.”
In May 2024, the 300+ new amendments and the WHO CA+ Framework Convention (formerly known as the “Pandemic Treaty”) are scheduled to be adopted.
The time to let our opinions be heard and say no to neofeudalism is now.
Four treacherous tracks
Right now, the efforts by the WHO to scam the people of the world and to make our lives worse are happening on four different tracks, as documented by James Roguski and Nass on their respective Substacks and on the new dedicated website, Door to Freedom.
Here are the four tracks that are important to pay attention to right now, per Roguski:
The Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.
The amendments to the IHR adopted in May 2022 need to be rejected by the end of November of this year.
The new set of amendments to the IHR that are currently being worked on are expected to be submitted for consideration as a draft in January 2024 and adopted in May 2024.
The WHO CA+ Framework Convention (formerly known as the “Pandemic Treaty”).
Roguski points out four quickly approaching deadlines:
Sept. 20 — The U.N. plans to adopt a “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.”
Dec. 1 — Deadline to REJECT the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted on May 27, 2022.
Mid-January, 2024 — Deadline for input to the 300+ amendments to the International Health Regulations that are currently being negotiated in secret.
May 2024 — Scheduled date for adoption of the 300+ amendments and the WHO CA+ Framework Convention (AKA: “Pandemic Treaty”).
The IHRs were originally adopted in 1969. As described on the Door to Freedom website, the WHO members adopted a set of principles termed the International Health Regulations in 1969 to guide the conduct of nations during health emergencies affecting more than one country, especially malaria and smallpox.
“The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) provide an overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders.”
Another set of amendments was submitted by 94 countries around September 2022. The last publicly available draft was published in February 2022, we are kept in the dark as to what the real latest draft looks like.
That final draft of those amendments has to be formally submitted by an internal committee around January 2024 to be adopted in May 2024 (or so they hope).
Let’s look at the convoluted amendments plot in more detail. IHRs are legally binding but originally, the language of the regulations didn’t ask for too much.
The member states are now required to monitor their epidemiological situation and report qualifying developments to the WHO. If done honestly and without overreach, one could argue that it’s a sensible thing.
Like it is with everything in life though, the devil is in the detail. Let us use a metaphor. Membership in the WHO and being legally bound by their regulation are like a marriage.
One could say that marriage is a good thing. Yes, it could be — but what if your spouse is abusive? Then it’s obviously a bad thing. Same with the WHO.
It is lovely to have an honest international body helping with various matters of public health. Yes, it is lovely if that is actually what’s going on.
But if instead of being an honest organization, they are a mob that is running endless money laundering schemes for various wealthy folks and constantly trying to stick needles into people’s arms while knowing that the products they are trying to inject may be causing harm, then the story far from lovely. It is then not lovely at all.
So, we’ve been humming along, and then in January 2022, the U.S. submitted a number of nefarious amendments to 13 IHR Articles that, upon some display of discontent and noise raised by the African and some other member states ended up “disappearing” and going nowhere.
Instead, in May 2022, more innocuous amendments (to five articles) were adopted.
The amendments that ended up being adopted in May 2022 were submitted just a couple of days before they were adopted, despite the requirement to submit them at least four months in advance. Here is how it all went down:
Since the adoption of the amendments on May 27, 2022 (during the 75th World Health Assembly), no signatures by any Presidents or Prime Ministers have been obtained and no approval by the Senate, Congress or any Parliament has been obtained in order to “ratify” the amendments to the International Health Regulations. Such approval is NOT needed.
In Roguski’s opinion, the fact that legally binding amendments were adopted without any mainstream publicity or national legal oversight is a disastrous situation. Many of us agree.
Another set of IHR amendments set to be adopted in 2024
A brand new collection of amendments is set to be adopted in May 2024. Door to Freedom:
“The proposed Amendments would allow the WHO Director-General to assume the authority to direct healthcare around the world whenever he declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. He has already declared 3 (for Ebola, COVID-19 and monkeypox) during his six years in office.
“Among the new provisions in the proposed IHR amendments are the following:
The guarantee of human rights has been struck out, removing the words “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamentals freedoms of persons,” which are present in the current version of the IHRs.
The potential to enforce certain medical treatments and ban others.
A requirement for biological surveillance (such as PCR [polymerase chain reaction] tests) to be performed on humans and animals in search of pandemic pathogens.
The requirement to monitor social media and allow only the WHO’s narrative on public health to be transmitted.
The ability to commandeer medical supplies within one country for use by another.
The requirement to share genetic sequences of pathogens, even though this could result in proliferation of biological weapons, which is banned by existing treaties such as Resolution 1540 (2004) of the UN Security Council and the Biological Weapons Convention (1972).
“The proposed IHR amendments raise the possibility of a global health dictatorship, called at the whim of the WHO leadership or the whim of the WHO’s major funders. Why the WHO should take on these powers, when its performance during COVID-19 was far from stellar, is an important question.
“The proposed amendments will be considered for adoption at the 77th World Health Assembly during the last week of May 2024.”
The fourth track is the WHO CA+ Framework Convention. This track (formerly known as “Pandemic Treaty”) was initiated in December 2021.
It has to do with creating a new international legal framework that would theoretically coordinate the activities of different member states but in practice, would likely coordinate more money laundering schemes at our expense.
The ‘swine flu’ precedent and long-term planning
I wrote about the planning strategies around the time when the information about the “Pandemic Treaty” was first coming out:
“Thing is, the WHO already tried to pull off a huge vaccine-selling health crisis more than ten years ago but it didn’t quite work. The vaccine-selling part did work very well because they managed to activate the purchasing agreements — but the ‘scaring the public’ part kind of ‘flopped’ that time around.
“All that happened was that the pandemic was solemnly declared, the agreement-participating counties purchased relatively large batches of subpar vaccines (see ‘narcolepsy fiasco’), and then the entire thing went away.”
“A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments.
“Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines?”
Rather than putting public health first, such as pushing for safety studies into vaccination, WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries. WHO, for instance, has downplayed the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, stating that only 50 deaths were directly caused by the incident and “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure” from the disaster.
WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” in 1959, making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation.
Due to its acceptance of private money, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy went so far as to say the corruption of WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time,” particularly as it relates to WHO’s drug recommendations — including its “list of essential medicines” — which it believes is biased and not reliable.