In the video above, John Campbell,
Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, reviews the proposed amendments to the
2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which is the instrument
that empowers the World Health Organization to declare a Public Health
Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
If these amendments go through, however, the WHO will be empowered to
do a whole lot more than that. It will become the de facto governing
body of all member states, including the U.S.
Now, according to so-called “fact checkers,” the WHO will have no
authority to dictate U.S. health policy under the amended IHR or the
proposed pandemic treaty, nor will nations be stripped of their
sovereignty.1
But they’re completely wrong. The only reason they’re denying these
truths is because they don’t want the public to pressure government to
reject these proposals, as they should.
As noted by Campbell and others, including bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, Ph.D., and researcher James Roguski,2
the pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments are obviously written by
experts in both national and international law and appear “airtight.”
There’s simply no doubt that, as currently written, these instruments
will be legally binding and will supersede local and national laws.
They even include enforcement tools to ensure that member nations comply
with the WHO’s edicts.
Another false propaganda angle is that these instruments only apply
to infectious disease pandemics, but that isn’t true either. Areas of
life that are being added in under the umbrella of “health” include
climate, food production and even poverty, so the WHO will be able to
claim sole global authority over anything to do with those issues as
well.
In his video, Campbell goes through
several of the proposed IHR amendments, and how they will impact
national sovereignty and public health decisions. The article-by-article
compilation of the proposed amendments3 can be found here.
Strikethroughs in the text indicate that the text is to be deleted,
and the additions or revisions are underlined in bold. The following are
some of the most disconcerting amendments, copied with the deletions
and insertions of text showing.
New IHR Will Be Binding and Can Apply to Anything
Article 1 Definitions — “‘standing recommendation’ means non-binding
advice issued by WHO for specific ongoing public health risks pursuant
to Article 16 regarding appropriate health measures for routine or
periodic application needed to prevent or reduce the international
spread of disease and minimize interference with international traffic;
‘temporary recommendation’ means non-binding
advice issued by WHO pursuant to Article 15 for application on a
time-limited, risk-specific basis, in response to a public health
emergency of international concern, so as to prevent or reduce the
international spread of disease and minimize interference with
international traffic.”
Since the word “non-binding” is removed, this means that any
recommendation from the WHO will be binding and member states will be
required to follow the WHO’s recommendations.
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 risk
all risks with a potential to impact public health, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade, livelihoods, human rights, and equitable access to health products and health care technologies and know how.”
This really opens the door for the WHO to take over for just about
any reason. It doesn’t even have to be a real public health threat. It
could be a potential, unproven or suspected threat.
Human Dignity, Rights and Freedoms Will Not Be Factored In
Article 3 Principles — “The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons based
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.”
In other words, bodily autonomy and personal choice are being
replaced by one-size-fits-all medicine that has no regard for human
dignity, human rights or fundamental freedoms. The right to so much as
an opinion will also be removed on the national level.
Article 10 Verification — “If the State Party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours , WHO may shall , when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately
share with other States Parties the information available to it, whilst
encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.”
So, if the WHO suspects that an outbreak within a nation might pose
an international threat, but the nation in question doesn’t want to
collaborate with the WHO, the WHO will immediately tell the other
members about the suspected threat, which will put pressure on the
uncooperative nation, and the views of that nation will be deemed
irrelevant.
Other amendments within this and other articles also specifically
remove any involvement of the nation in the WHO’s decision-making.
Article 13 below is but one example. As noted by Campbell, the
director-general is repeatedly specified as the sole authority when it
comes to making assessments and decisions. The director-general can also
impose sanctions on nations that refuse to follow his dictates.4
How can a single person be given the authority to make decisions for
the entire world? This kind of authoritarian top-down system can only
damage public health, as public health is best served by local decision
makers that have access to local data.
Director-General Can Act Unilaterally on Mere Suspicion
Article 12 Determination of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern, or Intermediate Health Alert — “If the Director-General considers, based on an assessment under these Regulations, that a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern is occurring, the Director-General shall notify all States Parties and seek to consult with the State Party in whose territory the event arises regarding this preliminary determination ...”
The key problem here is the addition of “potential or actual.” The
WHO can take over if the director-general has a mere suspicion that a
health emergency might be brewing. The threat doesn’t have to be real or
evident.
Article 13 Public Health Response — “At the request of a State Party, WHO shall collaborate articulate clearly defined assistance to a State Party offer assistance to a State Party in the response to public health risks and other events by providing technical guidance , health products, technologies, know-how, deployment of civil medical personals,
and assistance and by assessing the effectiveness of the control
measures in place, including the mobilization of international teams of
experts for on-site assistance ...”
Again, input from the member state will not be accepted. It’s no
longer about collaborating with the WHO on health emergencies. It’s
about obeying it. The WHO will independently decide what’s to be done.
The WHO may also send in its own medical personnel to address the
situation.
Newly Added Articles
Several new articles have also been added to flesh out and describe
the WHO’s authority, and what member states must do to comply with this
new top-down order. Here are two telling ones.
NEW Article 13A WHO Led International Public Health Response — “States [sic] Parties
recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of
international public health response during public health Emergency of
International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in
their international public health response.”
In other words, member nations shall bow down to the WHO and do as
they’re told. A newly added Article 53 goes on to detail how each member
nation must implement a compliance committee to ensure the WHO’s
directives are adhered to and executed.
New Article 13A Access to Health Products, Technologies and Know-How for Public Health Response — “1.
Immediately after the determination of a public health emergency of
international concern under Article 12, the Director General shall make
an immediate assessment of availability and affordability of required
health products and make recommendations, including an allocation
mechanism, to avoid any potential shortages of health products and
technologies ...
3. States Parties shall provide, in their
intellectual property laws and related laws and regulations, exemptions
and limitations to the exclusive rights of intellectual property holders
to facilitate the manufacture, export and import of the required health
products, including their materials and components.”
So, once a PHEIC is announced, the director-general will lay claim to
all medical resources within the member states. Other additions also
spell out that the WHO will control:5
The local production of health products |
Intellectual property |
Cell lines used in the production of biotherapeutics and vaccines |
Allocation of medical resources |
Biosurveillance |
Development of regulatory guidelines for the fast-tracking of health products |
Censorship of “false and unreliable information” about public health events, preventive strategies and pandemic countermeasures |
A global health database (which is required for the implementation of vaccine passports) |
IHR Amendment Greenlights Conflicts of Interest
The amendments also plainly allow for conflicts of interest that
might harm public health. Under Article 9, the WHO can declare a public
health emergency based on information from undisclosed sources. Those
sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates
Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, or any number
of other players with conflicts of interest.
As reported by The Defender,6
“One of the biggest changes the WHO has seen in its 75-year history is a
shift from funding from sovereign nations to funding from private
parties.”
At present, the majority of the WHO’s funding comes from Bill Gates,
through donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and
the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Gates also
funds the World Economic Forum, and his nonprofits are taking money from
drug companies.
What this means is that Gates and drug companies wield enormous power
over the WHO. It’s not even close to being independent. A majority of
the WHO’s funding is also “specified,” meaning it’s earmarked for
particular programs. So, the WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever
they’re needed most, and this also massively influences what the WHO
does and how it does it.
There’s no getting around this point: The WHO is an organization that
does whatever its funders want it to do, and that does not bode well
for global health, considering medical errors are already a leading cause of death,
and have been for decades. The IHR amendments basically open the door
wide to mass medical experimentation on humanity without informed
consent, and if the COVID pandemic is any indication, nothing good will
come from that.
PHEIC Definition Expanded to Include Just About Anything
The amendments also radically expand the situations that can
constitute a PHEIC. A PHEIC is currently defined as an “extraordinary
event” in one country that constitutes “a public health risk to other
states through the international spread of disease and to potentially
require a coordinated international response.”
Amendments seek to expand and broaden this definition to include
things like clusters of infection with potential but unverified
human-to-human transmission. The actual risks of such clusters don’t
even need to be evaluated. What’s more, the proposed definition of a
PHEIC does not specify that it must involve “severe” or
“life-threatening” disease, so it could be invoked for just about
anything.
One of the amendments also suggests giving the director-general the
ability to declare an “intermediate public health alert” when the
situation doesn’t fully meet the PHEIC criteria. In such an event, the
director-general and/or a regional WHO director would be able to declare
a public health emergency of regional concern (PHERC).7
As suggested by Campbell, to really understand what they’re trying to do here, browse through the Article by Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments8 for yourself. Most definitely, don’t believe the “fact checkers” who say there’s nothing to see here.
Treaty Will Expand WHO’s Power Beyond Pandemics
As mentioned earlier, when you add in the proposed pandemic treaty,
the WHO’s powers expand even further, because in addition to expanding
emergency powers during pandemics, the treaty also emphasizes the “One Health”9,10 agenda, and that covers just about everything you can think of.
As illustrated in the graphic11
below, the One Health agenda is based on the premise that a broad range
of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore
fall under the “potential” to cause harm.
This graphic below isn’t comprehensive. The scope of One Health, according to a One Health Commission document,12
also includes communications, economics, civil society, global trade,
commerce and security, public policy and regulation, research,
noncommunicable diseases, agricultural land use (which involves forcing
farmers off their land), disaster preparedness and response, disease
surveillance, the “human-animal bond” (whatever that means) and much
more.
Under the new treaty, the WHO will have unilateral power to make
decisions about all of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and
overrule any and all local, state and federal laws. For example, under
One Health, the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health
emergency and implement climate lockdowns to address it.
One Health Is Part of The Great Reset Agenda
One Health basically mirrors The Great Reset agenda. It just uses a
different name and justifies all these Great Reset changes as a means to
“protect health.” Not surprisingly, One Health is financed and promoted
by a long list of Great Reset backers, including the United Nations,
the European Union and various U.S. federal agencies,13,14 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Wellcome Trust, UNICEF, CEPI, the World Economic Forum and the World Bank.
But while these entities are officially funding the pandemic
industry, what’s really happening is they’re using taxes to fund wealthy
people, who in turn exploit the poor. It’s as far from philanthropic as
you can get.
Taxpayers are providing the money while private profiteers are
deciding how that money is spent, and it’s being spent in ways that will
benefit themselves. So, it’s a private-public “partnership” where the
public is being robbed and all the benefits go to the private sector.
As reported by Paraschiva Florescu and Rob Verkerk Ph.D., with the Alliance for Natural Health International:15
“The One Health approach is aligned with WHO’s linear
and reductionist thinking that seeks to distill all potential solutions
to one view of the underlying science, one view on the necessary
medicines, and only one truth.
This monolithic approach spells grave dangers for
humanity given that it is bottom-up, decentralized, regionally specific
approaches to complex health problems that have always been shown to
work. Top-down, “one size fits all” approaches, especially ones twisted
by conflicted interests, are doomed to failure.
Only those who fail to look at the wider scientific
picture are prepared to convince themselves that the WHO’s first global
attempt at managing a pandemic, involving masks, lockdowns and genetic
vaccines, was a success.
At its core, the WHO’s extended powers will lead to
even more censorship and will dismantle the notion of consensus science
built on a transparent, scientific method ...
Without an international uprising by the grassroots,
these amendments will go ahead. Our silence and passivity are our
consent. It is, without question, part of the slow descent into
totalitarianism, taking us further and further away from principles and
values that have characterized many civilizations over recent millennia,
namely the right to liberty, the rights of the individual, and the
importance of national sovereignty.”
To learn more, check out the Stop Vax Passports Task Force webinar on One Health,16 available on NTD.com.
Global Threat Detection Network Launched
Already, the WHO has launched a global threat detection network, the
International Pathogen Surveillance Network (IPSN), to “help protect
people from infectious disease threats through the power of pathogen
genomics.”17 Apparently, it fully expects to be granted all the powers that the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty will impart.
This network will be used to collect and analyze pathogenic samples,
which in turn will drive the WHO’s public health decisions. As described
in a press release:18
“The IPSN, with a Secretariat hosted by the WHO Hub
for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, brings together experts
worldwide at the cutting-edge of genomics and data analytics, from
governments, philanthropic foundations, multilateral organizations,
civil society, academia and the private sector.
All share a common goal: to detect and respond to
disease threats before they become epidemics and pandemics, and to
optimize routine disease surveillance ...
COVID-19 highlighted the critical role pathogen
genomics plays in responding to pandemic threats. Without the rapid
sequencing of the SARS-COV-2 genome, vaccines would not have been as
effective, or have been made available so quickly.
New, more transmissible variants of the virus would
not have been as quickly identified. Genomics lies at the heart of
effective epidemic and pandemic preparedness and response, as well as
part of the ongoing surveillance of a vast range of diseases, from
foodborne diseases and influenza to tuberculosis and HIV.”
The problem, of course, is that the COVID “vaccines,” developed at
warp speed using genomic sequencing, were neither effective nor safe.
Many have died within two weeks of getting their jab, and after several
months, the effectiveness become negative. This is the technology they
now want to use for everything. The risks moving this agenda forward are
near-incomprehensible.
So, to summarize and recap, the globalist takeover hinges on the
successful creation of a feedback loop of surveillance for virus
variants, declaration of potential risk followed by lockdowns and
restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to “end” the
pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on. The
funding for this scheme comes primarily from taxpayers, while the
profits go to corporations and their investors.
Current Timeline
Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations
will have only a limited time to reject them. Any nation that hasn’t
officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them,
and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be
null and void.
As it currently stands, the IHR amendments will be voted on in the
World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024. They only need a majority vote
to pass. If that vote happens as planned, then the 10-month deadline for
member states to reject the amendments will expire in March 2025, and
the amendments will come into force in May 2025. If a member state opts
out, then the current 2005 IHR version will apply to that state.
The WHO pandemic treaty will also be voted on by the WHA in May 2024.
It requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and 30 member countries
to ratify it. Thirty days after ratification, the treaty will take
force for the countries that signed it.
Bill Introduced to Require Senate Approval, but Is It Enough?
Fortunately, the U.S. Senate is not entirely clueless about the
ramifications of this treaty, and 17 Republican senators, led by Sen.
Ron Johnson, R-Wis., have introduced a bill to thwart the WHO’s power
grab.19
The “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,”20 introduced February 15, 2023, would require a Senate supermajority (two-thirds or 67 senators) to pass the pandemic treaty.
However, according to Boyle,21
an expert on international laws and treaties, even this bill might not
be enough to protect us were President Biden to sign the treaty. The
reason for this is because the treaty is written “specifically to
circumvent the Senate-approval process.”
A far more effective strategy, he says, would be for Congress to
withhold its annual contributions to the WHO — and then withdraw the
U.S. from the WHO altogether.
I believe it may be worth supporting all of these strategies. So,
please, contact your representatives and urge them to support the “No
WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,” to
withhold funding for the WHO and, ultimately, support U.S. withdrawal
from the WHO.