When it was established in 1948, under the auspices of the newly minted United Nations, the purpose of The World Health Organization (WHO) was that it would act as an advisory body in international health matters. Since 2005 however, the WHO has, through the implementation of International Health Regulations
(IHR) as the main compliance tool to ensure that public health
emergencies would be handled swiftly, established itself as a supra - national political entity. The COVID pandemic perfectly
illustrates how powerful the WHO already is in geopolitics. And it is set to become even more powerful.
A new set of amendments (pdf) to the WHO, proposed by the bureaucrats who represent national governments, was published at the end of 2022, with the aim of increasing the WHO’s power under the guise of the IHR. This, in addition to a newly proposed Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) (pdf) and the addition of a pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response treaty, raises several red flags on the changing role of the WHO , from international health advisory body to becoming a global regime using 'public health' as a cover for superseding the soverignty of elected governments.
Related to these far reaching measures, the WHO has published a
number of amendments to the IHR that will strengthen the it’s power
considerably pertaining to global health emergencies. For example, the
WHO will have the power to act upon potential rather than actual
emergencies, and allow the director-general of the WHO control over the
production of medication that may be allocated as he or she deems fit.
Corporate War On Individual Freedom
Throughout history, people have relied on connections within their community friends, family, and neighbors to maintain a healthy social life and the wise woman, shaman, priest or order of monks and nuns for medicinal support. Social connections are important not only for physical and mental wellness but also for building the trust upon which the foundation of relationships lies. We trust our family, friends, neighbours and so will take their word that somebody offering health support is genuine. Just as trust is vital in relationships with family and friends, in regard to health, it is vital in patient-doctor relationships.
Doctors across many countries and diverse regions have a plethora of different methods to treat something as simple as a cold. Some may give you a flu shot, some may prescribe you some minor medication, and some might even tell you to drink hot soup and get lots of rest. There may also be an unfamiliar remedy from Latin America or Southeast Asia that works just as well as something you could pick up in a European or American. pharmacy. .
The one-on-one patient-doctor relationship has traditionally been the tried-and-true way to establish a health system in any society. Even the current over - used 'evidence-based medicine,' advice from the European Medicines Agency, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), UK National Health Service and other health agencies serves as nonbinding recommendations to doctors that give them the right to make their own decisions based on their knowledge of the patient. The bond of trust between doctors and patients has always been considered incorruptible and demands that doctors practice medicine grounded in ethics and based on genuine medical knowledge, skills, and experience—all things that most doctors still have.
Recently however that bond has been shattered by numerous scandals culminating in the ridiculously hyped COVID-19 pandemic and the mRNA non - vaccines that were allowed to sidestep all safety and ethical oversights in the rush to inject the world with a formula that was never going to make people immune to a relatively minor infection with an infection to fatality rate similar to that of any year's seasonal 'flu.
Drug and vaccine makes, member of the Big Pharma cartel, powerful health agencies headed by nelected bureaucrats, and health insurance enterprises linked to the banking and finance community are all intertwined, forming a tremendous
conglomerate of power. In the name of protecting the people, this
manifestation of power has reached an unprecedented level, which was on
full display during the pandemic in the form of lockdowns, mandates, the
rush of drugs and vaccines, insurance policies determining diagnosis,
etc. The doctor / patient personal relationship has been totally corrupted by corporate money and political power.
The newest changes to the WHO's constitution are amendments to the International Health Regulations agreement. The World Health Assembly first adopted the IHR in 1969 to cover six diseases and it has since been revised several times.The amendments to IHR will demand WHO member nations detect, assess, report, and respond appropriately in regard to public health emergencies that can spread on an international scale. During the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during its onset, China demonstrated an aptitude for disinformation and a lack of transparency toward the international community with regard to sharing data, allowing a probe into the origins of the virus, and issues involving the most recent unprecedented spike of infections and death after the country lifted its zero-COVID restrictions.
How in hell's name any sane person could think tinkering with regulations will change the behaviour of nations like China, Russia, Iran, Turkey or North Korea (and that's just the usual suspects,) is a mystery. but then when dealing with bureaucrats, sanity to too much to hope for.
One of the major concerns raised by people who have seen early drafts of the amendments is that the WHO is giving itself the authority to override health measure decisions made by individual nations and grant the organization the capacity to censor what it considers misinformation and disinformation, should the amendments be adopted. This is a serious threat to the sovereignty of every WHO member and, given the lies we have been sold throughout the three years of the COVID fiasco, the safety of every individual living in WHO member states.
At the same time, the WHO’s
new amendments change the advisory nature of the IHR to that of law,
meaning that the organization will hold just as much power—if not
more—as the state legeislature of any mmber state's elected government with legally binding jurisdiction
and enforcement capabilities.
These fears are even more worrying because the amendments are vague in nature and
leave much room for interpretation. For example, the amendments do not
specify the amount of funding countries need to contribute, which could
lead to an escalation of corruption in underdeveloped countries.
Another astounding change in the proposal is the removal of “respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons” in Article 3 of the IHR, being replaced with the meaningless terms “equity” and “inclusivity.” Echoes there of demented Joe Biden's idiotic exhortation to Americans to get the vaccine, "Nobody is safe until we re all safe," indicating that the vaccines would not protect against infection, (because of course, if the vaccines worked the vaccinated would have nothing to fear from contact with an unvaccinated person.)