Summary of the PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE W.H.O.’S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS

·      
The
build-out of a massive and expensive global biosecurity system is underway,
allegedly to improve our preparedness for future pandemics or biological
terrorism.  In aid of this agenda two
documents are being prepared through the WHO: 
a broad series of amendments to the existing International Health
Regulations (2005) (IHR)^[1] and a proposed entirely new pandemic
treaty, accord or agreement.^[2] (Multiple names have been applied
to this treaty, with the term WHO CA+ 
used most often.)

·      
Both
the amendments and treaty are on a deadline to be considered at the annual World Health  Assembly meeting, in May 2024.

·      
A
treaty requires a two-thirds vote of the World Health Assembly’s 194 member
states to be adopted and is binding only for States that have ratified or
accepted it (Article 19 and 20, WHO Constitution). It could potentially be
enacted into force in the US by a simple signature, without Senate
ratification.

·      
The
IHRs and any amendments thereto are adopted by simple majority, and become
binding to all WHO Member States, unless a state has rejected or make
reservations to them within predefined timeframes (Articles 21 and 22, WHO
Constitution; Rule 72, Rules of procedures of the World Health Assembly).

·      Amendments are passed by simple majority.[3] 

·      
The
current draft of the IHR Amendments would allow the Director-General of WHO or Regional
Directors to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)[4] ,
or the potential for one, without meeting any specific criteria[5] 
(Article 12).  The WHO would then assume
management of the PHEIC and issue binding directives[6] 
to concerned States.

1.     PHEICS and potential PHEICs could
be declared without the agreement of the concerned State or States.

2.     WHO’s unelected officials
(Director-General, Regional Directors, technical staff) could dictate measures
including quarantines, testing and vaccination requirements, lockdowns, border
closures, etc.

·      
WHO officials would not be accountable
for their decisions.

·      
Proposed
Article 3 removes rights that have been intrinsic to the IHRs until now.

Removed
are basic rights under international law. 
Struck from the 2005 IHRs is the crucial guarantee of human rights as a
foundation of public health:  “The
implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for
the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons…”

This
has been replaced with the following legally meaningless phrase: “based
on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence…” 

·      
Among
many egregious proposals, one example encapsulates the extraordinary nature of
what is being proposed.  Proposed article
43.4 notes that the WHO could ban the use of certain medications[7] 
or other measures during a pandemic, since its ‘recommendations’ would be
binding:

“WHO
shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned to modify or rescind
the application of the additional health measures in case of finding such
measures as disproportionate or excessive. The Director General shall convene
an Emergency Committee for the purposes of this paragraph.”

·      
States’
obligations [8] in
the proposed Amendments would include:

1.     Conducting extensive biological
surveillance of microorganisms and people (Article 5);

2.     Monitoring mainstream and social
media and to censor “false and unreliable information” regarding WHO-designated
public health threats (Article 44.1(h)(new));

3.    
Providing
medical supplies for use by other States as determined by the WHO[9] 
(New Article 13A);

4.     Giving up intellectual property for
use by other States or third parties[10] 
(New Article 13A);

5.     Transferring
genetic sequence data for “pathogens capable of causing pandemics and
epidemics or other high-risk situations” to other Nations or third
parties, despite the risks this entails (Article 44.1(f) (new)).

·      
The
engagement of WHO with non-State actors (non-governmental organizations,
private sector, philanthropic foundations, and academic foundations) is
foreseen in multiple proposals, raising enormous concerns about conflict of
interest (Articles 12.New 7, 13.New 7, New 13A.7).

·      
It
is expected that to implement these proposals, WHO will require a massive increase
in its budget.

·      
The
role of the WHO will change from assisting Nations to manage public health
challenges on request, to becoming the manager of a massive network of bio-surveillance
activities and becoming the enforcer[11] 
of its public health policies.