On the Changes to WHO’s Pandemic Treaty
By Steve Beckow
A video on the Geneva Convoy and a selection of articles from Frontline Doctors on the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. Thank you for allowing me to use this event to demonstrate the impact of lethargy on our behavioral choices. Thanks again to Ev.
Del Bigtree’s The Highwire covers the Geneva convoy
(1)
5 key takeaways from the WHO’s new IHR amendments
New changes address ‘pandemic emergencies’
Yudi Sherman, Frontline Doctors, June 04, 2024
[https://frontline.news/post/5-key-takeaways-from-the-who-s-new-ihr-amendments]
Countries at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last week approved new amendments to the International Health Regulations, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced Saturday.
The International Health Regulations (IHR) are a set of international laws that are legally binding on all WHO countries. Claps and cheers reportedly erupted at the World Health Assembly when country delegates agreed to the IHR amendments.
The amendments are the result of two years of negotiations, which began after WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted the IHR be updated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here are five key takeaways from the new IHR amendments.
The director-general has unilateral power to declare a ‘pandemic emergency’
Director-General Ghebreyesus may declare public health emergencies and pandemic emergencies at will. He requires no approval from a committee or oversight body.
Once an emergency is declared, it triggers the IHR, which obligate governments to obey the WHO’s rules. These rules require countries to use resources that go towards monitoring and tracking cases, surveillance, research, and developing and distributing “health products” such as masks and vaccines.
Each country must establish a WHO enforcement body
The IHR amendments also require each country to establish a “National IHR Authority,” which is a governmental body tasked with enforcing the WHO’s regulations in that particular country. This is different from the existing requirement to establish a National IHR Focal Point, which is simply a point of contact in each country for WHO officials.
Countries must address ‘misinformation’
Another new addition to the regulations is that governments must develop “risk communication” in a pandemic. This requires “addressing misinformation and disinformation” such as social media posts questioning the safety of vaccines or promoting scientific evidence that challenges conclusions made by public health authorities.
Member countries must pay for ‘equitable access’
WHO member countries must fund the pandemic response in poorer countries, which the IHR refers to as “equity.” The term “equity” or “equitable access” has been added eight times to the amendments, which require governments to:
[I]dentify and enable access to financial resources, including through the Coordinating Financial Mechanism, established pursuant to Article 44bis, necessary to equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening and maintaining core capacities.
The WHO will issue mandates concerning ‘health documents’
The WHO will make decisions about how countries issue and authenticate “health documents,” which would seemingly include the international certificate of vaccination mentioned elsewhere in the IHR:
WHO, in consultation with States Parties, shall develop and update, as necessary, technical guidance, including specifications or standards related to the issuance and ascertainment of authenticity of health documents, both in digital format and non-digital format. Such specifications or standards shall be in accordance with Article 45 regarding treatment of personal data.
According to Article 45, governments should not publicize a person’s personal data unless it is necessary for public health.
The WHO has been working on a digital international certificate of vaccination since last year.
In June 2023, the WHO announced the launch of its “digital health partnership” with the European Commission that will involve the development of global vaccine passports among other “digital products to deliver better health for all.”
(2)
WHO pandemic treaty hits snag
Republican governors slam pandemic accord: ‘Unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people’
Yudi Sherman, Frontline Doctors, May 26, 2024
[https://frontline.news/post/who-pandemic-treaty-hits-snag]
For over two years, the WHO has been attempting to introduce a pandemic accord that it claims will “strengthen global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response to prevent a repeat of the health, social and economic impacts that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Last week, the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) held its ninth round of negotiations with member states to compose a final draft of the treaty. The negotiations did not meet expectations, however. WHO officials are disappointed that a final draft was not approved in time for the organization’s annual World Health Assembly in Geneva this week.
“We are not where we hoped we would be when we started this process,” INB Chairman Roland Driece told the Associated Press. Driece added that creating a pandemic treaty is crucial “for the sake of humanity.”
There has been widespread criticism that the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will require member states to cede sovereignty to the WHO in the event of a pandemic.
On Wednesday, 24 Republican governors signed a letter to Joe Biden expressing concern that these two initiatives “would purport to grant the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and its people.”
“The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles,” the governors wrote.
They also expressed concern that the agreements currently under negotiation will transform the WHO from an advisory body to a global health authority. Under the proposed arrangements, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus would have the power to unilaterally declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC).
Indeed, recent drafts of the pandemic treaty would crack down on taxpayers who disobey mandates, among other measures.
In Article 18 of the draft, the WHO clarifies that governments must promote “pandemic literacy” — a strategy which, like media literacy, tells the public who to trust and suppresses “misinformation.”
“The Parties shall strengthen science, public health and pandemic literacy in the population, as well as access to information on pandemics and their effects and drivers, and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation as referred to in Article 16 herein,” the agreement states.
In addition, governments should craft policies that will quash noncompliance with “public health and social measures” and enforce “trust in science and public health institutions.”
“The Parties shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions,” says the document.
Member states are also instructed to rope in the private sector for pandemic-related activities.
The WHO would also be able to use public health as a pretext to dictate global policy. In one clause, for example, the WHO demands that governments “encourage ceasefires in affected countries during pandemics to promote global cooperation against common global threats.” In another clause, countries must enforce “gender equality” and place more women in leadership positions to create a proper “health and care workforce.”
Governments would be permitted to withdraw from the pandemic agreement only after waiting two years after signing it, following which the agreement will still remain in effect for that nation for another year as the withdrawal does not take effect immediately.
During that time, the WHO can declare a pandemic at any time and for any reason. Such reasons might include a virus like COVID-19, a social condition like loneliness, or a phenomenon like “climate change.”
(3)
Your personal freedoms are dangerous — to the WHO
‘People having too much freedom is the thing that annoys the regulators’
Caryn Lipson, Frontline Doctors, May 28, 2024
[https://frontline.news/post/your-personal-freedoms-are-dangerous-to-the-who]
The failure of the WHO member states to adopt the WHO’s pandemic treaty by the proposed May 27th deadline can be seen as a victory, albeit not final, by freedom-loving persons around the globe.
WHO calls personal decisions dangerous
In September 2019, the WHO ”declared vaccine hesitancy one of the ten biggest threats to global health . . .“ The WHO may actually be threatened by individuals exercising the right to make their own personal health decisions based on their own research.
In August 2020 the WHO credited itself with coining the term “infodemic,” declaring information not coming from the agency to be dangerous misinformation.
Soon after the world started getting used to the terms coronavirus and COVID-19, WHO coined another word: “infodemic” — an overabundance of information and the rapid spread of misleading or fabricated news, images, and videos. Like the virus, it is highly contagious and grows exponentially. It also complicates COVID-19 pandemic response efforts.
“We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.”
A BMJ article, “‘Torrent of fake news’ has put negotiations at risk, says WHO chief,” published January 29, 2024, revealed that WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a former leader of the Marxist terror group Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), already saw the writing on the wall — that the pandemic treaty was destined to fail. Instead of taking people’s concerns to heart, however, he chose to blame the troubles on “fake news.”
WHO officials blamed conspiracy theories for mobilising public opposition to the accord and hindering negotiations. Social media is awash with what Tedros described as a “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories.”
Among the false claims are that the pandemic treaty plans to snatch sovereignty from countries by imposing lockdowns or vaccine mandates. “This is fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. Negotiating members know that the agreement will give WHO no such powers, because you are writing it,” Tedros said.
Despite Tedros protestations, “fake news” is not the reason the pandemic treaty is now on life support.
Power grab
Censorship
National Herald India‘s AJ Prabal described what appears to be the main reason politicians throughout the world have resisted ratifying the treaty – they’re apparently unwilling to cede their own powers to the world body. He documents the breadth of power the unelected and unaccountable body holds to censor scientists and what it deems “disinformation:”[1]
Once the countries sign the treaty, they will hand over all regulatory control of future pandemics (Disease X) to WHO. The UN body will declare the onset of fresh pandemics, declare protocols to be followed (lockdowns, vaccines), prescribe medicines and their dosage, demand surveillance prescribed by it, and decide on which medicines and vaccines are acceptable and which are not. What is more, WHO will also have the power to censor scientific papers, scientists, and research, and also decide what is disinformation and what is not.
WHO is an unelected body and is totally unaccountable to anyone, [Dutch politician and European Parliament independent member Robert ‘Rob’] Ruse has pointed out. But WHO nevertheless wants countries to cede part of their sovereignty so that WHO, despite its poor record, can control future pandemics, bio-terrorism and climate change. (Emphases added.)
Not a good fit for most
Ruse also explained that solutions cannot be one-size-fits-all. Different countries have different needs as demographics and health concerns vary.
Ruse has also pointed out that one size does not fit all. [Pune-based epidemiologist] Dr Banerjee agrees. Demographics differ from country to country as do conditions, he points out. India is a young country with an overwhelming percentage of its population below the age of 70, whereas Europe is ageing faster. Obesity and comorbidities are major health issues in the West but not so much in Asia. In Africa, mortality from Covid was higher in South Africa, where people are more obese than in other countries. While obesity is a problem in the West, malnutrition is a more serious problem in poorer countries like India. (Emphaisis added.)
Ignores local health concerns
Focusing on pandemic solutions rather than local health needs can lead to misapplied resources and bad outcomes. This is what happened in India where TB and dengue are more serious diseases than COVID was.
Not just demography, but population density and cultural differences too can play a role in pandemics. In India, 80 per cent of the population did not take a booster dose. They did not have to. More Indians died of other diseases than of Covid-19, and yet the government spent 50 per cent of the total health budget on securing vaccines to deal with Covid. Neglect of other diseases has led to a resurgence in cases of TB and dengue, and about 2,000 children in India continue to die every day of diseases other than Covid, Dr Banerjee points out. (Emphases added.)
Your personal health takes a backseat to “public health”
Former British comedian and actor, Russel Brand may be one of those who Ghebreyesus believes is spreading lies. Now a podcaster with some conservative views, Brand has not hesitated to express his perspective on the events of our times.
In a May 2022 podcast, a week before a gathering of the WHO’s World Health Assembly, the WHO‘s governing body, to work on the treaty, Brand elaborated on the agency’s interest in increasing its regulatory powers while quoting from a Telegraph article on the treaty draft. It is funded, Brand pointed out, primarily by nations and organizations with “biases at odds” with your and his health requirements and his preference for more freedom, not less:
Lifesite News journalist Stephen Kokx reported on an interview Brand had with Tucker Carlson, during which they discussed several topics, including Brand’s experience of having been targeted by the CIA and the UK government for his viewpoints — they had tried to destroy his reputation with vague sexual allegations — and Brand’s views of the globalists’ attempts to suppress dissent:[2]
“There are now sets of globalist organizations, funded by government, but also by corporations, that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way,” he said.
. . .
“It’s like we’re being prepped, groomed, primed for ‘war is coming.’ We’re being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance,” he asserted. “The ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don’t begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To be explicit, I’m talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WEF, and their astonishing influence.” (Emphases added.)
They also discussed geopolitics and the globalists’ doublespeak to cloak their intentions. Kokx reported:
Brand and Carlson agreed that the “loathing of nature” carried out by global elites indicates “something dark” is happening.
“Clearly what we’re watching are the fruits of spiritual war,” Carlson stated. “Certainly the solution seems to me to be spiritual,” Brand replied, adding that “authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in the insidious language of care, concern, safety and convenience.” (Emphasis added.)
Trust them not to take away your freedom?
Authoritarianism vs freedom was a topic of grave concern for Sky News Australia’s Outsider program cohosts Rowan Dean, Rita Panahi, and James Morrow, as well. In a discussion about the global pandemic treaty,”[3] they voiced concern about the proposed treaty and how it may be well received in Australia, particularly as most of the people accepted and even cheered on COVID-19 countermeasures. They also expressed concern about the dire implications the treaty has for personal freedoms, pointing out that the regulators, who may not be willing to endure people’s personal freedom, claim that freedom is the problem:
Dean:
The reality is the World Health Organization have [sic] made it crystal clear James that they want that ability to have a global pandemic treaty.
Morrow:
Well you know, and thing here that underlies this and so many things that we need to be vigilant about and what people need to be vigilant about but they get called conspiracy theorists and whack jobs and things like that, the fundamental idea behind all of this is this idea that freedom is somehow the problem.
And this is the issue, with so many of the issues that we face, whether it’s the pandemic whether it’s the climate crisis, if you want to say that in quotes, whatever the issue is, people having too much freedom is the thing that annoys the regulators and we’re going to see this. We saw the Climate Council this week come out and say that well to, you know, fight the climate thing not only do we need to all move to EVS but we need to own half as many cars and take half as many car trips we need to take trips according to the public transport schedule.
You know, we see this on level after level after level and this is what people need to be really vigilant about. It is not freedom that is the problem. It is always the people who want to take your freedom away.
Dean:
And we’re now in a world where really it’s not left versus right — it’s authoritarianism versus freedom, as James says — or the collective, the greater good versus freedom of the individual to make their own choices. And what we saw during COVID, which is why we must have a royal commission, as Rita was saying, to find out what actually happened during COVID. You must have that Royal Commission into what actually happened and what did happen to our freedoms and at what costs they came. (Emphases added.)
Considering the above, it appears that it is the WHO’s agenda that presents a danger — to your personal freedom.
Related articles:
- Don’t just reject the Pandemic Treaty – Get US Out! Of the WHO
- ‘Greatest single threat to the sovereignty of our constitutional republic’ – Congressmen warn about WHO treaty
- Emergency response or planned takeover? WHO Pandemic Treaty
- WHO vs First Amendment; White House to decide by May on ceding authority to global body
Footnotes
- [1]
Prabal, A.J. “Why Is Who Pushing so Hard for a Global Pandemic Treaty?” National Herald, National Herald, 23 Oct. 2023, www.nationalheraldindia.com/health/why-is-world-health-organization-pushing-so-hard-for-a-global-pandemic-treaty.
- [2]
Kokx, Stephen. “Russell Brand: God Is Directing a Global ‘Awakening’ in Response to Growing Authoritarianism.” LifeSite, 2 Feb. 2024, www.lifesitenews.com/news/russell-brand-god-is-directing-a-global-awakening-in-response-to-growing-authoritarianism/.
“World Health Organisation ‘desperate’ to Have Global Pandemic Treaty.” YouTube, YouTube, 28 May 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=RotNYdpM8cE.
