Due to the influence of private money at the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), the corruption of the WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time.”
The WHO’s power grab is not only through a proposed pandemic treaty but also through proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”). They are coming at us through two routes.
The IHR was adopted by 194 member states of the WHO in 2005. In January 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These proposed IHR amendments are directed toward 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 is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new WHO pandemic treaty.
It is going to take each and all of us to campaign against the power grab through the IHR Amendments, World Council for Health says. it is essential to campaign against the proposed amendments and to build alternative pathways.
Why the Centralisation 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 PhD about the executive authority of the WHO-DC during Public Health Emergency of International Concern (“PHEIC”).
This is an edited segment from the weekly live General Assembly meeting on 9 May 2022. This presentation is also available on Rumble and Odysee. The full General Assembly Meeting is available in the Newsroom.
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 recognises the sovereignty of nations that adopted the IHR. But that is about to change.
Key Issues to Understand
On 18 January 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 modelling, 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 organisations 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 led 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 monopolise 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.
Read More: Corruption of the WHO