This is completely horrifying and if it isn’t stopped dead in its tracks by May 2024 we’ve had it.
Yes, that’s about the sum and substance of it.
By the time there is any serious public resistance to these measures, govts will be able to say their hands are tied by the treaty.
I think it needs to be understood that most western governments, at least, are willing partners in this.
A bit of navigation.
There are two WHO documents, a stem and a process of amendments to same.
The amendments quickly becoming far longer than the stem should raise an eyebrow, suggesting there could be a bit of sneakery. (But it’s not subtle!)
Then you need to consider that adoption of the stem requires a two thirds majority, whereas amendments are carried with a simple majority.
This should cause alarm given that it’s only with the amendments that you can see what is being enabled by the whole process. The whole meat is in the amendments.
This has made it easier for eg MPs to vote for. I think most fondly imagine they are voting for health ‘cooperation’ and ‘preparedness’.
But on matters related to health the WHO will be given powers over nations who will no longer have sovereignty on those matters.
The WHO’s powers, when there is a health emergency - or a potential health emergency - will be binding. In the stem document, the words ‘not binding’ have been struck out all over the place.
And the WHO determines whether there is a potential health emergency or not.
This is what I refer to as the stem document (known as Zero draft or CA+)
Zero draft of the WHO CA+ for the consideration of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body at its fourth meeting (dated 1 February 2023):
For the amendments, a proposal document (may be referred to as IHR for short))
Article-by-Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) submitted in accordance with decision WHA75(9) (2022)
Link to current:
The amendments document is the more demanding of immediate attention, if only because it restructures the stem so that if you try to navigate using the stem, you can no longer tell where you are - the ‘Articles’ are renumbered.
So you can see what is being proposed.
A full account is given by David Bell, a former physician writing at the Brownstone Institution.
I’ve probably borrowed phrasiology from him here.
The John Campbell video posted by @Rich features Philip Krauss who explains what it’s all about.
Both refer to Articles of the above two documents.
I recommend the video and Bell’s documention, starting with the link.
Bell gives you the context, and Krauss spells out what it means.
The two of them give you a pretty good idea of what’s proposed.
I say ‘proposed’, but the proposal/process has stolen such a march (governments voting for it at the interim stage without question) that a major public effort is needed to have a chance of reigning it in before the deadline of May 2024 when it will be essentially, law.
It’s being getting a good press with thought leaders saying things like Thank Heaven There is going to be Global Pandemic Cooperation At Last.
It would mean for example that countries that didn’t have much of a problem with covid would be contracted to purchase a level of vaccines determined by the WHO, and whether they know it or not, the government would be obliged to make vaccinations compulsory if the WHO so decreed. And decreeing it they will.
I’ve used vaccination as an example but the scope is much greater - ‘everything’, so long as the WHO can relate it to health.
For the WHO is going to be the sole arbiter.
And not just ‘the WHO’ - merely the Secretary General - a position currently occupied by a former Ethiopian Warlord, who will be given the power to decide matters himself, requiring only to consult with committees.
Govts that would have liked to enforce vaccination but didn’t want to get themselves chucked out by their electorate would have a much stronger hand, not least because opposition parties would be wrong footed by support for the WHO. And by the fact they would be breaking a binding treaty that they did not oppose when it was signed.
Climate change (and everything that follows from that) is another thing that is included, on spurious ‘health’ connection.
So the scope of this power grab is like, global everything.
Hi folks, I think we need to make this very simple for people:
Leave the WHO completely or Lose the rights over your own bodies and ultimately your own countries.
One of the first points is to show that just a handful of criminals at the top of the WHO could erase all rights of individuals to control their own right to determine personal birth control - the WHO at a stroke of the pen could announce:
an AIDS-like epidemic, demanding Chinese style 1 parent or even 0 parent families for the World to control the “epidemic”. No democratic involvement would be needed in this process, no-one could refuse enforced sterilisation or mandated abortion. All women would lose control over the right to conceive.
The reverse would also be possible in “ultra low population regions”, so that women could be forced to be fertilized and even hand over new borns to State or World population control centres ( which of course could be and would be linked to body part and organ grabbing subsidiaries for the wealthy!)
an AIDS-like epidemic, demanding everyone be chipped and tracked to ensure World wide compliance over all bodily functions, with strong enforcement rights over all individuals.
blanket anti-democratic and anti-human right controls over all media and communication systems combined with military grade lockdowns/ 15, 10, 5, 1 minute “cities”, combined of course with suspension of all voting processes. All t"o keep you safe".
the establishment of World fascism under this so-called “health umbrella” is certain.
scientists and the wider “White Coat” brigade will be leading this dystopic future and will sell their wears to the public as essential health measures. The “Media” of all stripes will be used to inculcate the belief that any other alternatives involve the equivalent of murder and decapitation of babies.
2024 could make 1984 look like a tea party!
Horrific is the word!
From the IHR document linked in my first post
Bearing in mind WHO ‘recommendations’ will be binding…
Article 18 Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods
and postal parcels
- Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following
no specific health measures are advised;
review travel history in affected areas;
review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
require medical examinations;
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
place suspect persons under public health observation;
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
ED: The above, just from Article 18 alone, is numbered No.1.
It is followed by No2. which applies to “baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels”
“may include the following advice”:
- Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to baggage, cargo, containers,
conveyances, goods and postal parcels may include the following advice:
no specific health measures are advised;
review manifest and routing;
review proof of measures taken on departure or in transit to eliminate infection or contamination;
implement treatment of the baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, postal parcels or
human remains to remove infection or contamination, including vectors and reservoirs;
the use of specific health measures to ensure the safe handling and transport of human remains;
implement isolation or quarantine;
seizure and destruction of infected or contaminated or suspect baggage, cargo, containers,
conveyances, goods or postal parcels under controlled conditions if no available treatment or
process will otherwise be successful; and
refuse departure or entry.
ensure mechanisms to develop and apply a traveller’s health declaration in international
public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) to provide better information
about travel itinerary, possible symptoms that could be manifested or any prevention
measures that have been complied with such as facilitation of contact tracing, if necessary
ED: Note that “including vectors and reservoirs” can refer to animals and even humans.
This is a good illustration that whatever may happen in theory, what does happen as a result of these new WHO powers will be legal.
Article 43 says that states may be permitted to do other things related to the ‘health emergency’ but if they do they must apply to the WHO within 2 weeks.
Note that para 4 says the WHO can tell them to ‘modify or rescind’.
Para 6. indicates that such departures are a big deal to the WHO who is of course is boss, and needs to be reported to
Note that Para 7. here (most of which is new) indicates that alleged interference by one country with other countries health measures should be avoided, and countries must involve themselves in WHO-mediated discussions.
As an example, one country could complain that another’s having different or weaker lockdown policy, or its use and promotion of vaccine alternatives, is interfering with its own claimed best WHO-dictated practice.
Article 43 Additional health measures
(Emphasis is mine)
These Regulations shall not preclude States Parties from implementing health measures, in accordance with their relevant national law and obligations under international law, in response to specific public health risks or public health emergencies of international concern, which:
(a) achieve the same or greater level of health protection than WHO recommendations; or
(b) are otherwise prohibited under Article 25, Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28, Article 30, paragraph 1(c) of Article 31 and Article 33, provided such measures are otherwise consistent with these Regulations.
Such measures shall be based on regular risk assessments, provide a proportionate response to the specific public health risks, be reviewed on a regular basis and shall not be more restrictive of international traffic and not more invasive or intrusive to persons than reasonably available alternatives that would achieve attain the highest achievable level of health protection.
In determining whether to implement the health measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article or additional health measures under paragraph 2 of Article 23, paragraph 1 of Article 27, paragraph 2 of Article 28 and paragraph 2(c) of Article 31, States Parties shall base their determinations upon:
(a) scientific principles;
(b) available scientific evidence of a risk to human health, or where such evidence is insufficient, the available information including from WHO and other relevant intergovernmental organizations and international bodies; and
(c) any available specific guidance or advice from WHO.
A State Party implementing additional health measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which significantly interfere with international traffic shall provide to WHO the public health rationale and relevant scientific information for it. WHO shall share this information with other States Parties and shall share information regarding the health measures implemented. For the purpose of this Article, significant interference generally means refusal of entry or departure of international travellers, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, and the like, or their delay, for more than 24 hours.
(ED: This bolded paragraph is new:)
New 3 bis. A State Party implementing additional health measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure such measures generally do not result in obstruction or cause impediment to the WHO’s allocation mechanism or any other State Party’s access to health products, technologies and knowhow, required to effectively respond to a public health emergency of international concern. **
States Parties adopting such exceptional measures shall provide reasons to WHO.
After assessing information and public health rationale provided pursuant to paragraph 3, 3bis and 5 of this Article and other relevant information within two weeks, WHO may request that shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned reconsider to modify or rescind the application of the additional health measures in case of finding such measures as disproportionate or excessive. The Director General shall convene an Emergency Committee for the purposes of this paragraph.
A State Party implementing a health measure pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article shall within three months review such a measure taking into account the advice of WHO and the criteria in paragraph 2 of this Article. Recommendations made pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Article shall be implemented by the State Party concerned within two weeks from the date of recommendation. State Party concerned may approach WHO, within 7 days from the date of recommendations made under paragraph 4 of this Article, to reconsider such recommendations. Emergency Committee shall dispose the request for reconsideration within 7 days and the decision made on the request for reconsideration shall be final. The State Party concerned shall report to the implementation committee established under Article 53A on the implementation of the decision.
Without prejudice to its rights under Article 56, any State Party impacted by a measure taken pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article may request the State Party implementing such a measure to consult with it. The purpose of such consultations is to clarify the scientific information and public health rationale underlying the measure and to find a mutually acceptable solution. **Parties taking measures pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall endeavour to ensure that such measures are compatible with measures taken by other Parties in order to avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade while ensuring the highest achievable level of health protection. **
To this end, at the request of the Director-General or of any Party impacted by a measure taken pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article, Parties so requested shall undertake consultations either bilaterally, multilaterally or at the regional level as the case may be. The purpose of such consultations is to clarify the scientific information and public health rationale underlying the measures and to find a mutually acceptable solution. The Director-General or WHO Regional Directors on his or her behalf shall:
(a) facilitate those consultations and propose modalities for their conduct;
(b) review the evidence and information supplied by the Parties;
(c) provide his or her views on the necessity and proportionality of the measures in question and,
as appropriate, make suggestions or proposals on a mutually acceptable solution;
(d) report to the Health Assembly on the conduct and outcome of consultations, with particular
regard to general challenges and problems revealed by them.
Thanks for all the digging Evvy. Here’s John Campbell again this time interviewing Philipp Kruse:
A warning about a potential dystopian future from Mr Philipp Kruse, international lawyer, based in Zurich, Switzerland.
Interesting from David Bell, the above chronicler of the WHO world takeover moves.
He’s a leftie himself - or at least he was, until the left-right divide was cancelled and the right reinvented as anyone opposed to giant corporations taking over our bodies.
It’s not the left that needs to unite, it is society.
From Meryl Nass
A quick guide (to the dystopia that will descend my next May) that’s a bit handier for
quickly falling out with sharing with your friends than some of the other detailed stuff.
Eight items of major concern regarding the proposed WHO treaty and International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments
Use as a handout or for conversation starters, like: “Did you know…?”. We will post as a pdf handout at DoortoFreedom.org
The treaty and the proposed amendments instruct nations that they must perform surveillance for potential pandemic pathogens , build or maintain sequencing labs, and both share actual specimens with the WHO (where a BioHub has been created for this purpose) and also share the sequences online . This demands the proliferation of biological weapons agents—which I believe is a crime (based on my interpretation of Security Council Resolution 1540 and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention).
1 a. The June 2, 2023 “Bureau text” version of the treaty also called for nations performing Gain-of-Function research to reduce “administrative impediments” to the work. In other words, restrictions on the research should be relaxed, which would make lab leaks more likely to occur. This paragraph was removed from the October 30, 2023 version of the treaty.
The treaty calls for a Conference of Parties and a new WHO Secretariat to be created in the future that will make rules for how the pandemic prevention and response apparatus will work—which provides essentially a blank, signed contract to the WHO to create whatever rules it wants.
The treaty calls for rapid vaccine development /production and shaving time off all aspects of vaccine development, testing and manufacture. This requires vaccines to be used without licenses, and the treaty calls for nations to have laws in place to issue Emergency Use Authorizations for this purpose, and to “manage” liability issues. See “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty will Increase Man-Made Pandemics” for more information about this. The US, EU and others have specifically called for 100-day vaccine development and an additional 30 days for production of pandemic vaccines. This would allow for no meaningful human testing.
The amendments removed “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” from the existing IHR language. Following complaints, this phrase was later inserted into the Treaty–but the treaty may not be accepted in 2024. Meanwhile, the amendments require only a simple majority to pass, are being written in secret, and so it is likely that the most problematic issues will be found in the amendments.
Both the amendments and the treaty call for nation states to perform surveillance of their citizens’ social media, and to censor and prevent the spread of information that does not conform to the WHO’s public health narratives. Yet the treaty also calls for citizens to be free to access information, while they are to be protected from “infodemics,” which are defined as too much information. Citizens must also be stopped from spreading mis- and disinformation.
The amendments have been negotiated entirely in secret for the past nine months, while there have been multiple consecutive drafts of the pandemic treaty released to the public during that time. And while the negotiated amendments were to be tabled for public review in January, the WHO’s principal legal officer has provided a legal fig leaf to avoid the obligation of making them public 4 months ahead of the vote. Will the public even see the amendments before a vote on them occurs?
Why is there such secrecy regarding the proposed amendments?
According to the proposed amendments, the WHO D-G would be able to commandeer and move medical supplies from one country to another, decide what treatments can be used, and restrict the use of other treatments.
The amendments will come into force after a declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is made. However, a declaration of a potential PHEIC will also trigger these powers. The powers can be extended even after a PHEIC is over, as we have seen with COVID and monkeypox (MPOX) declarations by the D-G.
The treaty will be in force continuously, requiring no declaration or pandemic to confer new powers to the WHO.
Meryl Nass, MD
November 13, 2023