World Health Organization wants World Authority

[Kenny]

My stance is that they shouldn't have that authority over the United States or other sovereign countries.

(Though the items below prepared by another organization and may have some items you may not agree with, the power grab is still there. Even China can influence the WHO)

Here's How You Can Take a Stand Against International Health Regulation Amendments

Key Issues to Understand
On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. 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 Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20 January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.

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).”

Properly understood, 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.

Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59

1. 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 Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
2. 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 on-site 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, s/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.
5. 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.

The World Council for Health’s Position On Proposed IHR Amendments
The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state – and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model – is the expert guide to better health and wellness.

These proposed IHR amendments will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022. The official agenda item is 16.2. It is not clear if the event will be broadcast for transparency. Thus, the WCH believes that it is essential to campaign against the proposed amendments and to build alternative pathways.

Why People Must Take Action Together
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. To date, 13 days away from the World Health Assembly 75, the secretive list of each country’s delegates has been not been published. This is censorship.

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.

Global #StopTheWho Campaign Activated
It is going to take each and all of us to campaign against the power grab through the IHR Amendments, this May, and onwards to November – just six months away. In the best campaigns for human rights, multi-pronged strategies are effective. Here are some ideas:

1. Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
2. Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.
3. Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
4. Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
5. Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
6. Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
7. Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

You will also find #StopTheWho campaign resources uploaded to the World Council for Health website in the next few days.

Collectively, we are in the greatest awakening in history. Given our experiences the last 2 years, we know that we are the ones we have been waiting for. If not us, then who? If not now, then when? Let us join hands in taking back our health, our freedom, and our power.

In Unity for Health, Freedom, and Sovereignty,

World Council for Health (www.worldcouncilforhealth.org)

Document prepared by: Law and Activism Committee (LAC)

 

[SomeRandom]

I mean no offence. But the US health model is so fundamentally bad, even third world countries mock it. Like not even kidding.

I don’t think the US even comes in the top ten within the last 30 years or so.
I think South Korea was like the top spot recently in terms of worldwide health care
Revealed: Countries With The Best Health Care Systems, 2021 - CEOWORLD magazine

So why would I come to the conclusion that WHO would do a worse job overall than the US?
Serious question.

Not that I favour this move at all. Just curious

 

[ChristineM]

and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago.

Eh? Millions of people across the world died, as i remember the US was among the higher death rates per capita.
I personally know of several people who are now without mother or father, brother or sister because of this claimed exaggerated prediction

and potentially unfriendly member states

Ahh you.mean those ststes who value their population?

WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency.

So nothing new there then. Personally, if there is a world wide danger then i don't really care who flashes the red light.

However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern.

Not the concern of a selfish couple of percent of the world population but "international" concern. Yes, suites me fine.

This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full

Yes. And? Is that not enough advance warning to get your finger out and show concern for the world or reject.

I am not going any further, right wing isolationism is not for me

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As much as I agree that only specific regions of the world can know best what will help them, there are some flaws with this:

1. Specific states can be led by people with an agenda that is antithetical with public health.
2. Specific regions may operate from cultural values that undermine public health risks and may not understand the risks.
3. As the world becomes more global through technology, what happens in one region impacts every other region.

Number 3 is the kicker. I support the freedom for people doing what they think is best, until it impacts on other people. This is the basis for government, right?

As long as we continue to advance our technology, influence the environment, and kill each other, the more and more we need a global form of governance whether we want it or not, whether it is ethical or dystopian or not.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The socialists on here will all praise the WHO... people who actually understand freedom will be horrified at the thought of giving them unilateral power.
Some people only want comfort while some want actual freedom.

 

[SomeRandom]

The socialists on here will all praise the WHO... people who actually understand freedom will be horrified at the thought of giving them unilateral power.
Some people only want comfort while some want actual freedom.

Socialist here and WHO can kiss my foot.

But they can’t get it any worse than the US healthcare system.
A system that is literally beaten in all metrics by so called “socialist health care systems” in literally every civilised country on earth. For multiple decades even.
So again, not seeing how they could do a worse job. If they do, by all means, rebuke them

 

[Mock Turtle]

Who would want any world-wide authority - ever - when one nasty nation (Russia) can threaten the rest of the world with nuclear annihilation simply because of their own delusional aims and beliefs as to who and what they see they themselves as? Oh, I guess I can see some use in such - and even starting with world health concerns.

 

[ChristineM]

The socialists on here will all praise the WHO... people who actually understand freedom will be horrified at the thought of giving them unilateral power.
Some people only want comfort while some want actual freedom.

When the US gets its health system fair for all, i e, sort the you die because you can't afford the treatment that rich folk can afford then come back and tell me that freedom to live stinks so long as its not your freedom.

Oh. And i am branded socialist because i care about people. Thats nocet

 

[pearl]

Properly understood, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management.

Would this have made a significant difference toward the handling Covid outbreak in China had they not excluded the WHO?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The socialists on here will all praise the WHO... people who actually understand freedom will be horrified at the thought of giving them unilateral power.
Some people only want comfort while some want actual freedom.

They already did and you see the results.

Business destroyed, lives ruined, people out of work, supply chain issues, inflation now spiraling out of control.

They do bloody good work for a bunch of authoritarians.

 

[stvdv]

My stance is that they shouldn't have that authority over the United States or other sovereign countries

Yesterday I saw a video telling that the EU has the freedom (already or soon) to read all our apps (like whatsapp and Signal). Why? To check if there are child molesters

Such a thing is a really bad sign imo. I trust the source, but have not double checked it yet. But I guess most on RF find this a good thing, not to worry about, because our government only does what's best for us. Sadly I can't believe that

 

[Debater Slayer]

[...] people who actually understand freedom will be horrified at the thought of giving them unilateral power

Many of the people who have opposed medical advice since the onset of the pandemic are now supporting abortion bans, increased restrictions on LGBT rights, and increased involvement of government and religion in personal affairs.

"People who actually understand freedom" don't prioritize theocracy over the well-being, autonomy, and health of the public; those are people who "understand" only what they think some ancient book or their preferred religion dictates and want to model society around said understanding.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My stance is that they shouldn't have that authority over the United States or other sovereign countries.

(Though the items below prepared by another organization and may have some items you may not agree with, the power grab is still there. Even China can influence the WHO)

Here's How You Can Take a Stand Against International Health Regulation Amendments

Key Issues to Understand
On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. 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 Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20 January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.

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).”

Properly understood, 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.

Summary of Selected Proposed Amendments to the IHR
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59

1. 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 Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
2. 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 on-site 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, s/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.
5. 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.

The World Council for Health’s Position On Proposed IHR Amendments
The WCH opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health. This proven harmful model assumes that only one entity, WHO, understands how to manage the health policy of every state – and by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, incorrectly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine which is the WHO’s preferred model – is the expert guide to better health and wellness.

These proposed IHR amendments will be voted upon at the next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022. The official agenda item is 16.2. It is not clear if the event will be broadcast for transparency. Thus, the WCH believes that it is essential to campaign against the proposed amendments and to build alternative pathways.

Why People Must Take Action Together
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. To date, 13 days away from the World Health Assembly 75, the secretive list of each country’s delegates has been not been published. This is censorship.

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.

Global #StopTheWho Campaign Activated
It is going to take each and all of us to campaign against the power grab through the IHR Amendments, this May, and onwards to November – just six months away. In the best campaigns for human rights, multi-pronged strategies are effective. Here are some ideas:

1. Speak: Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
2. Act: Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices, and cases, etc.
3. Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
4. Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
5. Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
6. Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
7. Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs

You will also find #StopTheWho campaign resources uploaded to the World Council for Health website in the next few days.

Collectively, we are in the greatest awakening in history. Given our experiences the last 2 years, we know that we are the ones we have been waiting for. If not us, then who? If not now, then when? Let us join hands in taking back our health, our freedom, and our power.

In Unity for Health, Freedom, and Sovereignty,

World Council for Health (www.worldcouncilforhealth.org)

Document prepared by: Law and Activism Committee (LAC)

I would much rather that the determination of public health emergencies be left to the WHO and other major medical organizations instead of politicians with ideological agendas and little or no understanding of or respect for expert advice. That would have certainly saved many lives worldwide if certain countries and states had opted for that approach, as statistics have demonstrated over the last two years.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They already did and you see the results.

Business destroyed, lives ruined, people out of work, supply chain issues, inflation now spiraling out of control.

They do bloody good work for a bunch of authoritarians.

There have also been many lives ruined by COVID and lack of proper pandemic-control measures in some parts of the world. Do those figure into your statement?

 

[Twilight Hue]

There have also been many lives ruined by COVID and lack of proper pandemic-control measures in some parts of the world. Do those figure into your statement?

Yea. People are willing to cut their heads off to spite their face.

 

[Vee]

So why would I come to the conclusion that WHO would do a worse job overall than the US?
Serious question.

Fair point.

 

[Vee]

Wouldn't it be awesome if the WHO used all that authority to tell people to eat unprocessed food, sleep enough, exercise some and stop smoking? Can you imagine?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The socialists on here will all praise the WHO... people who actually understand freedom will be horrified at the thought of giving them unilateral power.
Some people only want comfort while some want actual freedom.

If you and other conservative Christians want actual freedom, then does that mean you all now support LGBT rights? To answer my own question, I seriously doubt it. Normally, when conservative Christians talk about protecting freedom, it means freedom for them to keep pushing their biblical beliefs down everyone else's throat while they actively support laws (federal and state) that suppress the freedom and civil rights of the Americans they don't like because of their sexual orientation. They also love to tell women what they can do with their own bodies while loudly bellyaching about how mask and vaccine mandates take away their freedom to choose their health decisions for themselves. So, if anyone wants comfort rather than actual freedom, it's the conservative Christians who actively fight against LGBT rights and a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. They obviously want to live their own lives as they choose without interference from anyone else, but they're not willing to allow this right to LGBT people and women.

 

[sun rise]

Given what the right is trying to do: tell libraries what they can have on their shelves, tell teachers what they can teach, tell doctors what medicines that they MUST prescribe, tell women what they can do with their bodies, tell election officials how to count ballots (must be in favor of the right), enact anti-voting laws with no justification, refuse to enact a life-saving health care system, punish poor people for being poor and so forth, a theoretical possible health care proposal is utterly "much ado about nothing".

Truly the right needs to consider the "beam" in its eyes before focusing on the motes in others.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wouldn't it be awesome if the WHO used all that authority to tell people to eat unprocessed food, sleep enough, exercise some and stop smoking? Can you imagine?

They have done all of that at different points, if I'm not mistaken. The difference is that the pandemic, by sheer virtue of being so widespread, can overwhelm the medical infrastructure in a way that the other health hazards you listed don't.

A vulnerable person could catch COVID from some unmasked stranger on the subway, but they can't catch the habit of eating processed foods or smoking from them. That's the main difference.