The World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision making body of the WHO, is meeting through May 30 to discuss and possibly vote in IHR amendments that could override national sovereignty.
Croatian MEP Mislav Kolakušić seems to get it.
The World Health Organization (WHO) wants all countries to sign an agreement on handing over the authority to declare a pandemic, procure vaccines and drugs. It would be healthier and safer for humanity to sign an agreement with the Columbian drug cartel. They know all about drugs for sure.
During the Covid pandemic, the World Health Organization only told lies. It should be declared a terrorist organization. They lied that it is a new and unknown virus, that it is possible to make an effective vaccine, that the vaccine is 82% effective, that it protects against serious illness and deaths. That all of course were foolish and lies.
Today the World Health Organization is more dangerous than the World Economic Forum.
And that last bit is really saying something…
The WHO Pandemic Treaty was halted before, but they’re not giving up…
Kim Iversen offers some background in a report following the the last World Health Assembly last June:
If you remember the hashtag #StopTheTreaty was trending. People were saying that countries were about to give up their sovereignty to the WHO, meaning that we wouldn’t be allowed to make a decision as a nation regarding our pandemic responses in the future. We would instead be beholden to global laws run by unelected officials.
Last week was the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the WHO composed of representatives from nearly every country in the world, gathered together in Geneva, Switzerland, and for a couple of days they discussed proposed changes to the IHR, which is the International Health Regulations, that were proposed by the U.S. and other wealthy western nations such as the UK, Australia and whatnot.
… It turns out, rather than having consensus, which is pretty typical at the WHO, several countries actually voiced objections to the proposed amendments. In fact Botswana read a statement on behalf of 47 African nations saying that they would collectively be withholding their support for the reforms. Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa, Iran and Malaysia also voiced strong objections. Brazil in particular said they would actually exit the WHO all together if these were adopted.
… There was actually no vote during these sessions. There was just debate… countries were voicing their concerns, but ultimately it forced the WHO to realize there wouldn’t be consensus if they did go to their informal consensus-style voting, which is how they make decisions.
If there is no consensus, then they do go to a majority 2/3 voting process. Now with 47 African countries, as well as many of the other nations such as Russia, India, China, not going along with this, it is unclear whether they would actually receive that 2/3 vote.
So it’s not over.
The WHO decided they’re going to go back to the drawing board and they’re going to be revising the amendments…
You can see what others have to say here, here and here.
Children’s Health Defense has created an action alert which elaborates on some of the proposed IHR amendments.
According to CHD, the proposed amendments stand to:
Remove the existing IHR language granting “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” They are actively attempting to eliminate “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms” from the IHR amendments.
Change IHR recommendations from “non-binding” to legally binding such that all member countries must obey and implement them.
Create requirements for digital vaccine passports that will be used to restrict access and travel as the WHO sees fit.
Require surveillance of online information and suppression of information deemed misinformation and disinformation.
Coerce extreme lockdown measures, including the creation of “quarantine of suspect travelers, preferably in facilities away from the point of entry,” aka “quarantine camps” seen during the COVID-19 pandemic in China and elsewhere.
Allow the WHO D-G to declare an emergency at will.
Require nations to use certain medications while prohibiting the use of others during emergencies.
Allow the WHO to commandeer medical supplies in any country, transfer them to other countries, and evade laws on intellectual property.
To voice your opposition, take action here.
I love your article title.
Even were the WHO an organization with good science honestly interested in the health of humanity I would still oppose such a treaty. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Power should always be devolved as much as possible, especially on health. Power always leads to corruption and abuse; it must always be limited. I would say the WHO is a drug cartel equivalent to those in Columbia – people are made ill for profit and critics are silenced.
Many Substack writers view the WHO treaty as a surefire event that cannot be stopped. However, it's important to consider that the only real inevitability is that our country's leaders, who may be corrupt, will sign the treaty. As citizens, we have the option to secede from this decision in some way or another.