Preface: At a personal level, I intend acceptance and contentment in the things I cannot change. As a foreshadowing to this article, the military-industrial-medical complexes and global corporatists will most likely steam roll forward with corrupt and authoritarian maneuvers, and there is little I can do about it. But I can at least help with spreading awareness about developments and potential ramifications for our lives and planet. I think these small steps of sharing and learning about broad and diverse perspectives on global issues matter. Let’s dialogue.
Proposed Amendments to WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) and Pandemic Treaty
There are significant proposals for a WHO pandemic treaty and International Health Regulation amendments that have been working their way through reviews for the past year+ and will continue at a significant meeting, the 76th World Health Assembly, next week in Switzerland. I have seen little coverage in the USA. A rushed vote on changes seem inconceivable during this meeting, with May 2024 publicized as the latest target for finalization.
This is a comprehensive summary of proposed changes to the International Health Regulations (the author runs this Austrian non-profit organization). The final section includes potential implications for human rights and our overall human condition. Some excerpts from the “In Place of a Conclusion” section are below, which are among many critical considerations as these regulatory amendments work toward a vote:
Such approaches are likely to lead to interferences with numerous human rights, among them the right to health (Art. 12, ICESCR), including the principle of informed consent and the right to access safe and effective medical products, as well as the right not to be subjected without free consent to medical or scientific experimentation which forms part of the prohibition of torture (Art. 7, ICCPR).
and
…questions of how to ensure accountability of the WHO, its [Director-General] and the [Emergency Committees] for the decisions to declare a specific ‘event’ a [Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)], for the recommendations they issue to states and for other actions they put in motion in relation to the PHEIC, is not addressed in the proposed amendments. Given that the IHR amendments aim to further increase the emergency powers of the WHO, and given the WHO’s history of ties to the pharmaceutical industry, which is likely to benefit from every new PHEIC, and is (indirectly) involved in many of the WHO’s public-private partnerships, further thought should be given of how to ensure full accountability of the WHO and its public-private partners during a PHEIC.
and
Finally, many of the proposals to significantly extend state duties in regard to their ‘core capacities’ will potentially reshape domestic health systems and promote shifts in domestic health resource allocations towards pandemic surveillance, preparedness and response activities. This may conflict with health priorities democratic societies have set for themselves in implementing the human right to health within their local context reflecting locally specific disease burdens.
This article (and part 2) reads with more inflammatory but common language, with a primarily domestic (USA) perspective. It includes some coverage of both the IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty. Takeaways are pretty tightly aligned with the above international legal opinion. Here is yet another illuminating synthesis from the Alliance for Natural Health International, based in the UK.
Human Rights Optional
There’s a lot going on here, but even just the following change is enough to make me seriously question intentions. I find the below proposed edit to the International Health Regulations (IHR) a real head scratcher, and I expect most would agree. "Coherence" vs human rights? I'm not sure this new language even says anything of substance—it’s way too subjective, flimsy, and unclear. I'm all for adding a new principle on equity and consideration of social and economic conditions of member states, but what a strikethrough to the FIRST principle of our International Health Regulations!
Below is the proposed strikethrough in bold with new proposed language in italics:
Article 3 Principles
1. The implementation of these [International Health] Regulations shall be
with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of personsbased on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development. [bold and italics mine]
Human rights were tucked into the preceding Article 2, as follows, with proposed strikethroughs and new proposed language in italics:
Article 2 Scope and purpose
The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, prepare, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases including through health systems readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to
public health riskall risks with a potential to impact public health, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic,andtrade, livelihoods, human rights, and equitable access to health products and health care technologies and know how. [bold and italics mine]
Instead of advancing a principle of implementation in “full respect” of human rights and fundamental freedoms, under these proposed changes any implementation of the global regulations will “avoid unnecessary interference with…human rights.”
Again, “avoid unnecessary interference with human rights.” Flimsy.
Another key concern is the elimination of “non-binding” throughout the regulations—this changes everything about them.
(Here is the primary source of proposed IHR edits from the WHO. These modifications are being proposed concurrently, and confusingly, with a new WHO pandemic treaty.)
Revolt
I don't see our citizenry revolting on this one, but there are efforts to have a day of protest this Saturday, May 20th to coincide with the 2023 World Health Assembly (hopeful a vote will not occur until next year), and template letters to easily send to our state and federal representatives are available here: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community-forum/stop-the-who-power-grab/#form
You may of course disagree with my stance on this. I support global governance in theory for problems that demand global solutions, but the WHO is mired in evidence of capture by colonial pharmaceutical and other corporates and NGOs throughout its mismanagement (enabling?) of COVID, and before. They get no more trust from me, anyways, until they demonstrate a respect of science, privacy and doctor-patient autonomy, democratic process, and dismantling of corporate capture.
Dr. David E. Martin’s Recent History Lesson at EU Parliament
This video (mirrored on Youtube without slides here) from Dr. David E. Martin’s recent testimony at the EU Parliament is a good watch if you can spare the 20 minutes, as it informs a broader perspective on the significance of our time. David shares brutal fact after fact after fact on 50 years of coronavirus silliness. The video speaks for itself, but here’s more about David. David founded M-CAM, an “international intangible asset underwriter and analyst firm,” and “is the creator of the public equity index – the CNBC IQ100…which now is reported as a leading economic indicator for the U.S. and Global Innovation Economy published by The Conference Board.” You can hear it in his presentation, but this guy has analyst chops. Be skeptical of all things, but the data points and milestones shared in his presentation to Parliament are easy to look into and confirm for yourself (which I have not done point by point).
David’s most damning facts tell of domestic (USA)-led efforts, and one might ponder whether handing over more sovereignty to the WHO earlier in the 20th century would have changed the course of these events for the better (and I did ponder). However, the WHO has operated primarily in lockstep with US domestic efforts (alongside most of our peers) during these last few years, so I doubt it, and it is unclear how distinct the global health order is from US NIH/NIAID/CDC/DoD/FDA/UNC shenanigans. and CCP/WIV/Ukraine/etc biowarfare. It appears global consistency in failed pandemic “responses” was by design, and often facilitated by the WHO, but perhaps they were played by actors uncovered in David’s presentation.
Will the next Public Health Emergency be a virus, or…?
Earlier this spring I came across this article evaluating the risk of our national governments declaring a climate emergency, which could lead to an authoritarian response—an unworkable and intolerable solution to climate change from my perspective. Here and here is some foreshadowing. I worry how the proposed WHO treaty and IHR amendments could further exacerbate and magnify such a future scenario. In particular, the international regulations have applied to “public health emergencies of international concern” involving the “spread of disease.” The proposed changes to the regulations may broaden this considerably, including (bold mine):
Article 12
New para 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 to States Parties and may consult the Emergency Committee in a manner consistent with the procedure set out in Article 49.
Broad, and even “potential” scenarios can apply for a new “intermediate public health alert” category.
Personal sovereignty and medical autonomy, individualized healthcare approaches, social liberation and justice, human rights. We deserve it. I’m highly skeptical that these WHO governance changes will advance society toward these outcomes.
Who are you, WHO?
I came across a fun fact recently. The WHO’s proposed limits on PFAS in drinking water are a lot higher than the US EPA’s, which are already too high. WHO standards may facilitate legal challenges to more strict local restrictions.
Why share on this somewhat unrelated topic? To provide you with a character reference. From the cited paper (bold mine):
The WHO working group’s conclusion that there is significant uncertainty and lack of consensus on whether PFOA and PFOS can be linked to adverse health effects represents a striking and inappropriate disregard for the best available science.
We must resolve capture before we contemplate an expansion of WHO power.
Recommended Article Follow-up:
Consider sending a note to your local, state and federal representatives. Here is a template that addresses you US state and federal reps.
Indulge your mind in 20 minutes of David E. Martin at EU Parliament with open ears and eyes.
Review and Share a Most Important Infographic: