WHO’s pandemic treaty will radically alter the global power structure and strip you of some of your most basic rights and freedoms. It’s a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.
The second attack by WHO on your sovereignty is the proposed IHR amendments that will establish a global biosecurity architecture involving health surveillance, reporting and management – and we the public have no say in the matter.
On 6 February 2023, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) released a report by the Director-General on WHO’s review of amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”). The IHR is what empowers WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (“PHEIC”).
The amendments will be ready for adoption at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. A simple majority is required for the amendments to be adopted, after which they’ll come into force in 12 months.
The second attempt to seize global control is through an international pandemic treaty with the WHO. The treaty would grant WHO the sole power to make decisions relating to global biosecurity, including but not limited to the implementation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions and standardised medical care.
The treaty will supersede the laws of member states, including the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republican senators have introduced a bill that would require a Senate supermajority to approve the WHO treaty, but even this may not be enough. We need Congress to withdraw the US from WHO altogether and stop funding WHO.
n the Children’s Health Defense video below, aired 11 February 2023, host Dr. Meryl Nass interviews investigative journalist James Corbett about the global biosecurity agenda, the World Health Organisation’s mishandling of global pandemics, and the two parallel processes currently underway that will effectively create a One World Government of unelected bureaucrats under the guise of global biosecurity. In a nutshell, WHO is being installed as a de facto governing body for the global Deep State.
Attack No. 1 — International Health Regulation Amendments
As reported by Nass, on 6 February 2023, WHO released a report by the Director-General on WHO’s review of amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”). The IHR, adopted in 2005, is what empowers WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (“PHEIC”).1
This is a special legal category that allows WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts. While the IHR already grants WHO exceptional power over global health policy, under the current rules, member states must voluntarily consent to WHO’s recommendations.
Under the new amendments, however, WHO would be able to declare a PHEIC in a member state over the objection of that state, and failure to adhere to WHO’s dictates in such a situation could have severe economic consequences.
As a whole, the proposed IHR amendments establish a global biosecurity architecture involving health surveillance, reporting and management – and we the public have no say in the matter.
We have no official avenue for providing feedback to the World Health Assembly, even though the amendments will give WHO unprecedented power to restrict our rights and freedoms in the name of biosecurity. There’s not even a publicly available list of who the delegates are or who will vote on the amendments.
All we currently know is that the amendments will be ready for adoption at the World Health Assembly in May 2024.2 A simple majority is required for the amendments to be adopted, after which they’ll come into force in 12 months. Member nations that disagree with the amendments have only 10 months to file a rejection or reservation.
Important IHR Amendments
While more than 300 amendments to the IHR have been proposed,3 and there’s no telling which will stay and which will be tossed out, certain ones that are currently up for review are more crucial than others. Here are a few of the most egregious:
1. Permissiveness of conflicts of interest and bias is baked in — Under Article 9, WHO can declare a public health emergency based on information from undisclosed sources.
Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, or any number of other players with conflicts of interest. WHO’s risk assessments will also be based on the same type of flawed modelling and prognostication that so grossly exaggerated the risk of covid-19.4
2. Elimination of national sovereignty — Under Article 12, the Director-General has unilateral power to declare a public health emergency and is not required to consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and/or the member state before doing so. So, the Director-General replaces any and all national sovereign authority. The Director-General can also impose sanctions on nations that refuse to follow its dictates.5
3. Expansion of situations that constitute a PHEIC — A PHEIC is currently defined as an “extraordinary event” in one country that constitutes “a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”
Amendments seek to expand and broaden this definition to include things like clusters of infection with potential but unverified human-to-human transmission. The actual risks of such clusters need not even be evaluated. What’s more, the proposed definition of a PHEIC does not specify that it must involve “severe” or “life-threatening” disease, so it could be invoked for just about anything.
One of the amendments also suggests giving the Director-General the ability to declare an “intermediate public health alert” when the situation doesn’t fully meet the PHEIC criteria. In such an event, the Director-General and/or a regional WHO director would be able to declare a public health emergency of regional concern (“PHERC”).6
4. Expansion of the WHO’s executive emergency powers to include:7
- Permanent bio surveillance capacities.
- The authority to allocate health products worldwide.
- The authority to develop regulatory guidelines for the fast-tracking of health products.
- The capacity to “counter the dissemination of false and unreliable information” about public health events, preventive strategies and pandemic countermeasures.
- The authority to develop “an interoperability mechanism for secure global digital exchange of health information,” i.e., a global health database to enable the implementation of vaccine passports.
Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations will have only a limited time – six months – to reject them. Any nation which hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be null and void.
Attack No. 2 — The WHO Pandemic Treaty
The IHR amendments are just one part of the globalist cabal’s two-pronged attempt to create the foundation for a One World Government of unelected globalists. The second attempt to seize global control is through an international pandemic treaty with WHO.
Right now, it looks like the WHO Pandemic Treaty may also be ratified at the World Health Assembly in May 2024, if it gets the two-thirds majority it needs to pass.8,9 WHO is seeking permanent and unilateral power to make pandemic decisions for the world, and the proposed treaty is the vehicle that would allow this.
It will grant WHO the sole power to make decisions relating to global biosecurity, including but not limited to the implementation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions and standardised medical care. Importantly, the treaty will supersede the laws of member states, including the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
WHO Is Corrupt and Inept
Even if centralising biosecurity were a good idea, which it’s not, WHO would not be at the top of the list of organisations to be charged with this task, seeing how its “curriculum vitae” is a long list of failures and scandalous conflicts of interest.
For example, WHO didn’t publicly admit SARS-CoV-2 was airborne until the end of December 2021, yet scientists knew the virus was airborne within weeks of the pandemic being declared. WHO also ignored early advice about airborne transmission.
The fact that WHO has installed Dr. Jeremy Farrar, former head of the Wellcome Trust, as its chief scientist is yet another sign that WHO’s health recommendations will be far from trustworthy. As previously reported, Farrar was one of the key figures in the coordinated cover-up of the origin of SARS-CoV-2,10 along with Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Overall, WHO is woefully unqualified to make health decisions for the whole world. But with this treaty in place, member nations will be subject to WHO’s dictates even if citizens have rejected such plans using local democratic processes. In short, every country that signs onto WHO’s pandemic treaty will voluntarily give up its sovereignty and the bodily autonomy of all its citizens to one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet.
As noted by Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law:11
Both [the IHR amendments and the treaty] are fatally dangerous. Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians
The Pandemic Treaty Is Based on a Flawed Premise
Aside from the fact that this treaty will eradicate the national sovereignty of member states, a core problem is that it simply cannot work. The whole premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires shared response,” but a given threat is almost never equally shared across regions.
Take covid-19 for example. Not only is the risk of covid not the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia, it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as covid is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.