The unelected globalist institution wants to take full control of national health measures for future pandemics.
The International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) is meeting 9-13 January and will make final recommendations to the Director-General of WHO by 15 January on changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The IHR is effectively a treaty which provides a framework for the international response to disease outbreaks and has been in force since 2005.
The proposed amendments will see a dramatic increase in WHO’s powers where a pandemic (or ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ (PHEIC)) has been declared. The sole power of declaring whether a PHEIC exists or not resides with WHO (Articles 48 and 49).
New Zealand has played an active role in the negotiations over the draft text, in submitting a proposal of amendments. This proposal was analysed in detail by researcher James Roguski.
A proposed new Article 13A in the IHR reads, ‘States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during a PHEIC and undertake to follow WHO in their international public health response.’
Although WHO’s powers are couched in the language of ‘recommendations’, under Article 13A they will be enforceable once the treaty is signed.
WHO can also issue ‘temporary recommendations’ in the event of PHEIC, or if an outbreak has the potential to become one (Article 15). WHO may also make ‘standing recommendations’ for ‘routine or periodic application (Article 16) – which includes recommendations on health products technology.
Recommendations by WHO with respect to people, may include (Article 18):
- review travel history in affected areas;
- review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
- require medical examinations;
- review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
- require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
- place suspect persons under public health observation;
- implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
- implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
- implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
- refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
- refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
- implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas
Proposed Article 23 relates to a new system of Digital Health ID. This will include information about the traveller’s identity, their itinerary, vaccination history and diagnostic test results. Although a paper-based documentation system may be adopted, these should ‘preferrably be in digital form, with paper form as a residual option.’
While States Parties may implement a Digital Health ID, it is not difficult to envisage the technologically advanced Western countries including New Zealand doing so – as soon as one country adopts it, it will be difficult for others not to. The effect of this will be to centralise the storage of all health and travel information for all citizens. Additionally, implementation of Digital Health IDs is subject only to ‘international agreements and the [proposed Pandemic Treaty]’ – not local constitutional law and human rights. Given the New Zealand courts refusal to give full effect to medical rights throughout the recent COVID pandemic, it is likely they will view any Digital ID implemented under a Pandemic Treaty as a ‘justified limitation’ on the fundamental rights of privacy and medical freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
States Parties must implement regulations ‘without delay’ (Article 42). Recommendations by WHO in times of a PHEIC must (generally) be implemented within two weeks (Article 43(6)).
States Parties may agree with one another to duplicate and store a person’s personal data (Article 45(4)). Citizens therefore have no right to privacy of their personal information, and cannot prevent this from being shared if there is an agreement in place between the person’s home and destination countries. Given the cozy intelligence relationship between the ‘5 Eyes’ countries, for example, would a New Zealander’s private information end up copied and stored by the governments of the other four alliance countries? And if so, what are the limitations on use and access of this information?
The proposed treaty provides for the establishment of a ‘Compliance Committee’ charged with making ‘recommendations’ on issues of compliance with the regulations. Reports of the Compliance Committee do not bind WHO, States Parties or other entities, and shall be in the form of ‘advice’ only.
Researcher James Roguski has spent a great deal of time investigating the WHO’s latest moves in this area, and has complied a list of top ‘100 reasons‘ to #stopthetreaty based on his detailed analysis of the proposed treaty’s text. The article is also produced in video format (below).
‘The World Health Organization is attempting a GLOBAL POWER GRAB by seeking to have the 194 member nations of the World Health Assembly adopt amendments to the International Health Regulations as well as adopt a completely new international agreement commonly referred to as the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.”.
‘The proposed amendments would make the WHO’s proclamations legally-binding rather than just advisory recommendations. The changes would institute global digital health certificates, dramatically increase the billions of dollars available to the WHO and enable nations to implement the regulations WITHOUT respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.
‘Agreement by a simple majority of the 194 member nations is all that is needed to adopt the amendments because, as amendments to an existing agreement, neither the advice and consent of the United States Senate, nor the signature of the President would be required.
‘These amendments are being negotiated in secret without any opportunity for comment by people from around the world.’