World Health Organization wants World Authority

[The Hammer]

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 say go for it. I think this a good thing for the WHO to do. Look how this last pandemic was bungled due to politics international and domestic. The secret sourcing is to protect individuals in places like China who can be executed for leaking info out of country.

 

[Vee]

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.

I wasn't talking about the pandemic, just in general terms. It would be a great use of their influence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Talk about trying to take a thread off topic...

 

[F1fan]

The socialists on here will all praise the WHO...

List the people on there who are the "socialists" so we know exactly what you mean.

And why would experts in public health in the USA be better that experts in public health globally?

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.

Freedom for an individual is vastly different than freedom for an individual who is part of a community. Conservatives focus on the former with a priority, and this ends up causing problems of liberty for the rest. This is why the arguments by conservatives does not work WHEN there is a public health interest.

Unless conservatives work towards an uncompromised level of personal responsibility for all citizens, and train them to not only be personally responsible, but also concerned for the rights and concerns of others. For example, during an pandemic as we've had with Covid such people who want individuals in society to be free of imposed public safety regulations like wearing masks in public, they had better teach people to accept expert explanations. This would allow those who advocate for personal freedom to be informed to act personally responsible, and they would understand they need to either not go into public without a mask, or avoid going into public to not put others at risk.

Instead we saw right wing media often misinform their audiences about expert advice. So not only did the conservatives not advocate for personal responsibility, but actually sabotage the ability for their audience of conservatives to make rational and ethical decisions. This is why public health and leadership, mostly liberals, to impose standards of social conduct. And we still see conservatives upset with the results and consequences their their own lack of ethics and personal responsibility caused.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Talk about trying to take a thread off topic...

Talk about trying to deflect and avoid the subject, especially since I wasn't the first person to bring up the topic, post #12.

 

[F1fan]

I wasn't talking about the pandemic, just in general terms. It would be a great use of their influence.

Public health all over the world advocate for healthy living habits. Of course in the USA there is a corporate interest in selling poor quality food to the public. This is acceptable because it's left to the public to make their own wise, health decisions. This assumes individuals are adequately informed about health and healthy choices. It also assumes there is adequate food sources to the public. In poor communities there is often a lack of healthy foods, called "food deserts", but plenty of poor quality food. The free market doesn't offer ethical options to society. It only sells what is profitable within the established habits of the community.

 

[Vee]

Public health all over the world advocate for healthy living habits. Of course in the USA there is a corporate interest in selling poor quality food to the public. This is acceptable because it's left to the public to make their own wise, health decisions. This assumes individuals are adequately informed about health and healthy choices. It also assumes there is adequate food sources to the public. In poor communities there is often a lack of healthy foods, called "food deserts", but plenty of poor quality food. The free market doesn't offer ethical options to society. It only sells what is profitable within the established habits of the community.

That's one thing that I have a hard time getting across my mind. In France, and most European countries, you have a choice of decent food even if you have a low income. Of course many people here eat badly too, but it's because they want to, not because they can't get anything better. Any supermarket, even if small, will have a certain amount of fruit, veggies and other items you can take home to make a meal from scratch. The prices vary, but many place have affordable options.

 

[Kenny]

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



Ahh you.mean those ststes who value their population?



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



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



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

Ok... so you are good for WHO to have control...


QUOTE:
During the Chinese Coronavirus outbreak, the WHO:

• Downplayed the spread of the virus as coming from Wuhan, China
• Covered up the rate of increase of cases … and the death rate
• Praised the oppressive communist Chinese regime’s handling of the abuses of human rights and ethics
• Lied about the death rate in China … and then scared the world with a false worldwide death rate figure.

The WHO has been a tool used by China to convince the world:

• China wasn’t responsible for the virus outbreak
• China did a better job of handling the pandemic than any other country
• China has the best medical care and the best scientists in the world
• Socialism is superior to capitalism

2. The WHO helped to cover up and delay releasing the truth about the Coronavirus.

Their coverup of the truth caused a delay in America and around the world to take action to protect people, work on vaccinations and cures … and even to begin to understand the virus.

The WHO covered up and ignored that China arrested and punished whistleblower doctors who tried to warn the world about the virus.

Some of those who were arrested died … others simply disappeared.

As early as last December, hospital doctors and nurses in Wuhan knew that the Coronavirus was being transmitted from human to human … yet the Chinese government and the WHO denied it.

Even in January of this year, the WHO said, “Preliminary investigation conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.”



OK... I'm just against it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even in January of this year, the WHO said, “Preliminary investigation conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.”

Those are some hefty claims to not cite them. And this last bit, that doesn't mean they are working with China, rather reporting what China reported (and it was assumed then they were lying and downplaying it because even then observed behaviors did not match what the government claimed).

 

[Kenny]

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

The rules that are proposed basically means if WHO says "shut down all of the US" - they have the power. It is basically a cart-blanche

 

[Kenny]

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

That is my position. There are no checks and balances either for the WHO.

 

[Kenny]

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.

But after covering up for China, they lost their autonomous position IMV>

 

[Kenny]

I say go for it. I think this a good thing for the WHO to do. Look how this last pandemic was bungled due to politics international and domestic. The secret sourcing is to protect individuals in places like China who can be executed for leaking info out of country.

I wouldn't agree (though I understand your position). I think WHO bungled by whitewashing the China connection... again... politics. At least here is it local and we can do something about it.

 

[Kenny]

Those are some hefty claims to not cite them. And this last bit, that doesn't mean they are working with China, rather reporting what China reported (and it was assumed then they were lying and downplaying it because even then observed behaviors did not match what the government claimed).

I believe that position has been substantially refuted now.

Even the US NIH director was manipulated by China:

NIH Director Tabak confirms agency hid COVID genes per Chinese

 

[ChristineM]

Ok... so you are good for WHO to have control...


QUOTE:
During the Chinese Coronavirus outbreak, the WHO:

• Downplayed the spread of the virus as coming from Wuhan, China
• Covered up the rate of increase of cases … and the death rate
• Praised the oppressive communist Chinese regime’s handling of the abuses of human rights and ethics
• Lied about the death rate in China … and then scared the world with a false worldwide death rate figure.

The WHO has been a tool used by China to convince the world:

• China wasn’t responsible for the virus outbreak
• China did a better job of handling the pandemic than any other country
• China has the best medical care and the best scientists in the world
• Socialism is superior to capitalism

2. The WHO helped to cover up and delay releasing the truth about the Coronavirus.

Their coverup of the truth caused a delay in America and around the world to take action to protect people, work on vaccinations and cures … and even to begin to understand the virus.

The WHO covered up and ignored that China arrested and punished whistleblower doctors who tried to warn the world about the virus.

Some of those who were arrested died … others simply disappeared.

As early as last December, hospital doctors and nurses in Wuhan knew that the Coronavirus was being transmitted from human to human … yet the Chinese government and the WHO denied it.

Even in January of this year, the WHO said, “Preliminary investigation conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.”



OK... I'm just against it.

Citations please. An no, i won't accept gop conspiracy theories