The IHRs regulate the way the WHO functions. The latest version of this compilation is the IHRs (2005). Two important amendments were made in May 2022 with the result that now for future amendments:

​

1. Member States will only have 10 months in which to reject them (currently 18 months)

2. These will be adopted 12 months from the notification

 

Note: the member States still have until the 1st December 2023 to reject these two amendments adopted by the WHO General Assembly in May 2022.

​

​

NEW AMENDMENTS TO THE WHO IHR (2005)

​

The WHO is currently discussing 307 new amendments proposals to the IHRs (2005) that, if adopted, will radically change the way the WHO functions.

​

1. All future WHO decisions during health emergencies will be legally binding and no longer mere recommendations to member States.

2. The WHO will have authority to restrain personal freedoms.

3. The WHO will have authority to impose control of confidential digital data on the global population.

4. The WHO will be able to impose biological identifiers to travellers.

5. The WHO will obtain total control of a global health emergency supply chain and logistic network.

6. The WHO is demanding a new financial instrument – “an international financial mechanism” to plan, prepare and manage the new infrastructures dedicated to future public health emergencies (Public Health Emergencies of International Concern - PHEIC).

 

To this regard please note:

• This “financial instrument” will distribute resources on equity-based decisions (who’s to decide?) – Art. 44, p.23.

• It is “established for providing the financial resources on a grant or concessional basis to developing countries…” (transfer of wealth or debt? or both?) -Art. 44A, p. 25.

• “The WHO shall strengthen capacities to: … counter information and disinformation (financial support to censorship?) - Annexe 1 (New 7) p. 36.

• And most importantly, who is to manage this “new financial instrument”? Please continue to read to find out.

 

At each round of discussions by the IHRWG there have been changes to the original proposals, but unlike the WHO CA+, no revised version of the 307 amendment has ever been published so far and no one really knows what the final draft will look like!!!

​

The timeframe for the IHRs amendments:

​

a. The WHO General Assembly will officially gather to decide on the 307 amendment proposals 27th May - 1st June 2024 (and not November 2023, as often claimed by observers)

​

b. Member States will have until March 2025 to reject these amendments.

Note: parliamentary scrutiny will not be required since amendments are regarded as an update to existing rules, but governments can send official letter of rejection.

​

c. The new amendments will become legally binding 12 months after notification to the member States, that is by March 2026

​

​

Both the IHR amendments and the final draft of the WHO CA+ will be adopted at the WHO General Assembly in May 2024 by unknown, unelected and unaccountable member States delegates.

 

We hope the above information has helped you realise that there is a lot at stake for which to fight and that the timeframe is not as tight as claimed by many. It may, therefore, be worth engaging in an action campaign aimed at MPs and other politicians and stakeholders in the attempt to raise their awareness on the threat posed by the WHO plans.

 

To this end, we have collaborated with the most active and expert campaigner on the subject, the American James Roguski (see link) and with his help we have prepared a template letter to send to the UK Members of Parliament – click here. To assist you in this urgent action, we have also uploaded an updated list of their email addresses – click here.

 

Please take the matter seriously, the UN General Assembly (not to be confused with the WHO General Assembly) is also acting to facilitate this process and is scheduled to adopt a Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response at their recent General Assembly 18th-20th September 2023 - this was announced at the UN General Assembly, on 2nd September 2022 in almost complete silence by the media (mainstream and “Alt-media” alike) until very recently and this is probably what is contributing to demoralise and paralyse public action – if news is released late in the day and deadlines are inaccurate there is a feeling of powerlessness (it’s too late, fait accompli, etc) which is doing the WHO’s bidding.

 

Worryingly, most media (mainstream and “Alt-media” alike) are tending to overlook this most important fact, the aggressive and concerted UN/WHO effort to secure huge funds for the control of global financial investments in future international health emergencies.

 

Here an excerpt from the “Zero Draft” of the proposed UN Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response mentioned above:

 

“Recall that financing effective national, regional and global health emergency preparedness will require approximately US$ 30 billion per year, outside current Official Development Assistance levels”

PP29 (page 5)

​

In a letter to the President of the UN General Assembly (dated 17th September 2023), 11 member states - Russia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe – have expressed procedural and political grievances against the UN Political Declarations expected to be adopted at the mentioned UN General Assembly 18-20 September 2023, including the UN Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response. While on the surface these countries appear to oppose the UN declaration(s), reading beyond their rhetoric and the usual complaining that the “developing” countries are somewhat being mistreated and/or ignored, in substance they complain on the lack of clarity on their share of the investments in the health-related and “sustainable” development agendas and (while in reality pushing the green agenda both at home and in international fora) ask not to be “punished” for their delay in getting up to speed with it. Important to note, these 12 countries are traditional allies of Russia and the deceptive nature of their strategy is clear to see both in their vague and woolly language and in their conclusion to the letter where adoption of the Declaration(s) is only a matter of time, they state:

“Hence, we expect a process to take place at a later stage, where the General Assembly will formally consider the adoption of the draft Political Declaration, under Chapter XII of the Rules of Procedures of the General Assembly.”

​

Thank you for taking the time to read.