Posted by Richard Willett - Memes and headline comments by David Icke Posted on 1 May 2024

WHO’s International Health Regulations: The intent of the newly released draft remains unchanged

Less than a month before the intended vote, the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations and the draft Pandemic Agreement are still being negotiated.  On 16 April, a new draft of the amended International Health Regulations (“IHR”) was released.

In understanding the apparent reversals of some previous proposals in the latest draft, it is important to understand that the covid-19 response demonstrated great success in imposing a new model for responding to outbreaks under the current voluntary IHR. Powerful privately owned foundations with strong connections to the pharmaceutical industry heavily directed this new response.

The newly released draft now states it is non-binding, as is the current IHR, but otherwise, the intent of the draft is essentially unchanged.  The intent is to further centralise control of public health within WHO and base response to disease outbreaks on commodities, such as vaccines. 

The New IHR Changes Are Merely Cosmetic

By David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh

For two years, the 196 State Parties to the 2005 International Health Regulations (“IHR”) – composed of 194 Member States of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), and Liechtenstein and the Vatican – have been submitting and discussing proposed amendments to update this agreement. Introduced in the 1960s, the IHR are intended to strengthen national capacities and improve coordination among countries in the event of a health emergency. Though a legally binding agreement under international law (i.e. a treaty), most of the provisions have always been voluntary.

The draft of the IHR amendments and an accompanying draft Pandemic Agreement are both still under negotiation a month short of the intended vote at the World Health Assembly (“WHA”) in late May. Together, they reflect a sea change in international public health over the past two decades. They aim to further centralise control of public health policy within the WHO and base response to disease outbreaks on a heavily commoditised approach, rather than the WHO’s prior emphasis of building resilience to disease through nutrition, sanitation, and strengthened community-based health care.

[Please note:  The Pandemic Treaty is also referred to as also referred to as the Pandemic AccordPandemic Agreement and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).]

The Changing Public Health Environment

Public health’s metamorphosis responds to the increasingly directive nature of the WHO’s funding and an increasing participation of the private sector in that funding. Together with a growth of commodity-based public-private partnerships including Gavi (for vaccines) and CEPI (vaccines for pandemics), this has been heavily directed by powerful privately-owned foundations with strong connections to Pharma, who shape the work of these organisations through direct funding and through influence brought directly upon countries.

This became particularly prominent during the response to covid-19, in which prior WHO guidance was abandoned in favour of more directive and community-wide measures including mass workplace closures and mandated vaccination. The resultant concentration of wealth within private and corporate sponsors of the WHO, and increasing impoverishment and indebtedness of countries and populations, both set a precedent for such approaches and left the world more vulnerable to their imposition.

Read More: WHO’s International Health Regulations: The intent of the newly released draft remains unchanged

The Dream

From our advertisers