The WHO is changing their International Health Regulations…& that’s NOT good

Audio Version ^{New Feature!}

May 22nd is the start of the World Health Organisation’s 75th annual World Health Assembly, in Geneva. Funnily enough, that’s the same day the World Economic Forum’s DAVOS summit begins over on the other side of Switzerland.

A coincidence, to be sure.

In the run-up to these big days on the globalist calendar, there’s been a lot of discussion of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic treaty”. Everyone from Russell Brand to GBNews has been talking about it, and that’s good.

The treaty represents a huge threat to national sovereignty and individual liberty, with proposed clauses including international digital IDs and even incentivizing third-world nations to exaggerate or even create future “health emergencies”.

So, you can’t have too much awareness…but it also shouldn’t be our exclusive focus.

The treaty is only in the very early stages, with even the earliest draft version not expected until August, and likely no vote on it until 2024.

But what’s expected to be voted through next week is the US mission’s proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

This is what should currently be our major focus.

What are the IHR?

The IHR are the WHO’s empowering legislation, setting the conditions and limits of its powers. Any amendment of these rules has almost-immediate global impact.

While this may not represent a threat to freedom on the same scale as the “Pandemic Treaty”, it is certainly more pressing. It’s also much easier to put in place.

Where a brand new treaty requires months of drafting and then the signing by each of the 194 WHO member states, an amendment to pre-existing legislation can be passed with simple vote at the Health Assembly.

In this way, they could even use the Treaty as a smokescreen.

You can even argue the prospect of the treaty two years down the road is a distraction from the rules they could pass as soon as this Sunday afternoon. It’s not impossible.

What are the new rules?

The amendments to the IHR were first proposed by the US mission to the WHO back in January, they are long and rambling but if you’re so inclined you can read the entire document here.

We’ll pick out the most concerning changes below.

Speeding up the process

The last regulation amended is the first we’ll look at here. Article 59(1) of the IHR currently states [our emphasis]…

The period provided in execution of Article 22 of the Constitution of WHO for rejection of, or reservation to, these Regulations or an amendment thereto, shall be 18 months from the date of the notification by the Director-General of the adoption of these Regulations or of an amendment to these Regulations by the Health Assembly.

The US proposal would totally remove the bolded mentions of amendments, and add a new sub-clause reducing the execution deadline from eighteen months to just six…

The period provided in execution of Article 22 of the Constitution of WHO for rejection of, or reservation to, an amendment to these Regulations shall be six months from the date of the notification by the Director-General of the adoption of an amendment to these Regulations by the Health Assembly. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no effect.

This means any regulations voted on this weekend would be expected to be fully enforced by the end of this year. Much sooner than any treaty could be in place.

The “compliance committee”

The amendments add an entirely new chapter to the regulations – Chapter IV – creating what they call the “compliance committee” (CC). The hypothetical committee would consist of unelected regional “experts” whose job would be to assess how well each member state is enforcing the new rules.

Among the many responsibilities of this panel of technocrats, they would be authorised to [emphasis added]…

Make recommendations to a State Party concerned and/or WHO regarding how the State Party may improve compliance and any recommended technical assistance and financial support.

“Financial support” is just international bribery. Essentially, the CC will be empowered to hand out kickbacks in return for national governments agreeing to play along with a pandemic narrative. We saw this during Covid, where the sudden death of COVID-sceptic Tanzanian President John Magufuli was swiftly followed by a reversal of his Covid policies and a 600 million dollar loan from the IMF.

We discussed this aspect in our last article on the Pandemic Treaty.

Loosening the definition of “pandemic”

The IHR is the legislation which empowers the Director-General of the World Health Organization to declare a disease is a pandemic, or a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC). The amended rules seek to broaden this power considerably in the following ways:

1) by allowing a PHEIC to be declared in the event of a “potential” emergency…

Art 12(2) […]If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring

2) by creating an entirely new class of “public health incident”, the “intermediate public health alert”, a term which is given absolutely zero  definition within the document and seems to be entirely at the whim of the WHO’s DG:

Art 12(6) Where an event has not been determined to meet the criteria for a public health emergency of international concern but the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response, the Director-General, on the basis of information received, may determine at any time to issue an intermediate public health alert

3) by empowering regional WHO directors to declare the (also brand new) Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC):

Art 12(7). A Regional Director may determine that an event constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern and provide related guidance to States Parties in the region either before or after notification of an event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern is made to the Director-General

Emergency Committee

Unlike the “compliance committee”, the emergency committee (EC) already exists in the old IHR framework and would be formed at the request of the Director-General after declaring a situation a PHEIC. The panel would be composed entirely of hand-picked members of the “IHR Expert Roster”, and would last as long as the DG said it should.

That’s bad enough, but the new rules would drastically change the composition of the committee.

Previously, Article 48(2) on the EC’s composition read…

At least one member of the Emergency Committee should be an expert nominated by the State Party within whose territory the event arises

The amended version reads…

Members of the Emergency Committee should include at least one expert nominated by the State Party within whose territory the event arises, as well as experts nominated by other affected States Parties.

Yes,  any “affected states” now get an auto-place on the committee. In case you were wondering an “affected state” is defined in Article 48 as:

[A] State Party either geographically proximate or otherwise impacted by the event in question.”

…an incredibly vague concept which could be applied to virtually any and every country in the world, and on a completely ad-hoc basis to control the narrative.

There’s good news though, at least this unelected group of technocrats to be given emergency powers during a pandemic (or “potential” pandemic), will be nice and diverse…

Art 48(2) […]The Director-General shall select the members of the Emergency Committee on the basis of the expertise and experience required for any particular session and with due regard to the principles of equitable age, gender, and geographical representation

Equitable tyranny is the BEST.

Undermining Sovereignty

The attack on national sovereignty contained in these amendments isn’t just a single clause or wording change so much as the recurring theme of the document. The very purpose of every change they propose involves weakening the individual nation in favour of the “Emergency Committee”, the “international community” and of course the WHO itself.

There are literally too many instances to count here, but here are the most egregious examples.

Article 11(3) used to read “WHO shall consult with the state party”…

the new text reads “WHO shall inform the State Party”.

Clearly and obviously revamping the language to establish a power dynamic. In these terms the WHO now outranks the nation-state.

Article 12(5) used to begin “If the Director-General, following consultation with the State within whose territory the public health emergency of international concern has occurred”…

the new wording reads “If the Director-General, following consultations with the Emergency Committee and relevant State Parties“

In fact, throughout the entire document, virtually every instance of the phrase “the State within whose territory the emergency has occurred” is replaced with the “the affected state parties”.

As discussed above, the definition of “affected states” is so vague that almost any country on Earth could claim to be one. The practical effect of this will be to dilute the power of an individual state to control its own health policies, whilst simultaneously allowing more powerful countries to barge their way into any “emergency” and control the narrative.

But most troubling of all is article 9(1), which concerns third-party reports of public health emergencies – meaning reports not formally submitted by a government regarding its own public health, but rather by an outside source.

This regulation currently reads [emphasis added]:

WHO may take into account reports from sources other than notifications [from National governments] and shall assess these reports according to established epidemiological principles and then communicate information on the event to the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. Before taking any action based on such reports, WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.

The new draft of this clause totally removes the bolded sentence.

Meaning that, under new rules, the WHO could receive third-party data claiming some new disease had killed thousands of people in Country X, and would not have to verify this data with Government X before declaring an international pandemic.

This totally disempowers the nation-state, whilst handing huge powers to these “third parties”, including foreign governments and intelligence agencies, multi-national corporations, NGOs, think tanks and international agencies (including the WHO itself).

Conclusion

Do you see the pattern here? Do you understand the fine interlacing of narrative control these amended rules actually create?

Under these rules, the machinery is put in place that can create a “potential pandemic” out of thin air whenever they want.

• Step 1: Some Big Pharma lab can report exaggerated/doctored/made-up data to the WHO, claiming a health emergency in some Poor African Country.
• Step 2: The WHO, no longer having to verify this data with the named country, immediately declares a “potential emergency”.
• Step 3: Under the “potential emergency” rules, an Emergency Committee is created.
• Step 4: Since any “impacted nation” automatically gets a seat on the committee the US/EU/China will always be able to insert their own “experts” into any “emergency” by claiming they are “impacted” due to trade routes or financial ties or human rights or…whatever.
• Step 5: The “experts” placed on the panel “confirm” Big Pharma’s data (without ever revealing many of them either have worked or still work for Pfizer/Merck/GSK et al.)
• Step 6: If the Poor African Country denies there is any health emergency within their borders, they will be brought before the “compliance committee” which will review their healthcare infrastructure, find it wanting, and offer them “financial support” and “technical assistance” to “better detect possible pandemics in the future”.
• Step 7: If the Poor African Country’s president knows what’s good for him he will immediately realise he does have a pandemic going on after all. If not – his health may take a speedy decline.

Obviously, most third world countries will take that money without hesitation, because they are desperately poor and/or corrupt.

And just like that…you have a pandemic.

The reality is that, as bad as the Covid19 “pandemic” was, it was also only a test drive. From the moment the narrative rolled out, the people running it were taking note of what worked and what didn’t, what they had the power to do, and where they fell short.

Now, while most of the world is distracted by Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine, they are putting the first legislative steps in place that will make the next “pandemic” a much tighter net.

In case you think this might be a distant prospect please recall that Bill Gates and his ilk are already and repeatedly talking about “the next pandemic” and suggesting it will be “worse than Covid”.

With these new rules in place they’re going to prove themselves right.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Health_Regulations
• https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/C.L.2.2022-IHR-amendments-English.pdf
• https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/19/pandemic-treaty-will-hand-who-keys-to-global-government/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDjQ8ivwbCU
• https://www.ft.com/content/c1ab6cee-4f84-4a85-9c53-9f5f444359d4
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3GQGYhYxI0