by Dr. Amy Cerato
On January 18, 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs, Loyce Pace, submitted documents to the WHO that proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. The link to the entire document is below:
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59.
These proposed amendments are a threat to the freedoms that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director General, even over the objection of the member state.
The proposed IHR amendments also cede control to WHO regional directors, who are given the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC). Moreover, the proposed amendments allow the Director-General to ring an international alarm bell, by unilaterally issuing an Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).
Put simply, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new pandemic treaty.
In specific there are five huge issues of concern that every American should be outraged over:
- Increased surveillance. Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
- 48-hour deadline. Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject onsite assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
- Secret sources. Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
- Weakened Sovereignty. Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may, not must, consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
- Rejecting the amendments. Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
Due to the influence of private money at the WHO, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy stated that the corruption of the WHO is the biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time. This is particularly true in relation to WHO drug recommendations, including its list of essential medicines, which a growing number of people believe is biased and unreliable.
Moreover, even though WHO’s documents highlight voice, agency, and social participation as drivers of equity and democracy, it is unknown World Health Assembly delegates who get to make decisions for us.
Given consistent evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by various industries, its usefulness as a guide to public health must be critically re-evaluated, while alternative paradigms and models for ethical health guidance and human rights are built.
This is an issue on which every Oklahoma must make their voice heard. The contact information for our congressional delegation is below:
