WHO: International Health Regulations (IHR)
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:18 pm
Below is a section from an article talking about the proposed amendments to the Who's 'International Health Regulations', remember, Tedros declared a monkeypox public health emergency back in 2022 when COVID was dying a death.
Why the WHO finally declared monkeypox a global public health emergency
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... tion-pheic
Do you think it's curious that Tedros' hand does not match the colour or tone of his face? Well, I can tell you what we're looking at is a face full of badly oxidised makeup. It always goes orange, though terracotta on him apparently. - "You’ve probably been there: flawless foundation in the AM and the oh-so-dreaded I-can’t-believe-I’ve-been-walking-around-like-this glimpse in the mirror come afternoon. Honestly, how does makeup go from looking stunning and airbrushed to looking, well, straight-up orange?" - But why is Tedros wearing a face full of makeup, and what is the actual colour of his skin underneath it?
Would you trust this guy with anything personal to you? Because he's set to be the new health dictator of the world telling you what you must inject into your body. Here's a section of the article about proposed changes to the regulations:
Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide
https://brownstone.org/articles/amendme ... ted-guide/
Why the WHO finally declared monkeypox a global public health emergency
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... tion-pheic
On Saturday, July 23, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the spread of monkeypox to be a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), the organization’s loudest alarm bell signifying an emerging outbreak.
Do you think it's curious that Tedros' hand does not match the colour or tone of his face? Well, I can tell you what we're looking at is a face full of badly oxidised makeup. It always goes orange, though terracotta on him apparently. - "You’ve probably been there: flawless foundation in the AM and the oh-so-dreaded I-can’t-believe-I’ve-been-walking-around-like-this glimpse in the mirror come afternoon. Honestly, how does makeup go from looking stunning and airbrushed to looking, well, straight-up orange?" - But why is Tedros wearing a face full of makeup, and what is the actual colour of his skin underneath it?
Would you trust this guy with anything personal to you? Because he's set to be the new health dictator of the world telling you what you must inject into your body. Here's a section of the article about proposed changes to the regulations:
Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide
https://brownstone.org/articles/amendme ... ted-guide/
Major amendments proposed for the IHR
The amendments to the IHR are intended to fundamentally change the relationship between individuals, their country’s governments, and the WHO. They place the WHO as having rights overriding that of individuals, erasing the basic principles developed after World War Two regarding human rights and the sovereignty of States. In doing so, they signal a return to a colonialist and feudalist approach fundamentally different to that to which people in relatively democratic countries have become accustomed. The lack of major pushback by politicians and the lack of concern in the media and consequent ignorance of the general public is therefore both strange and alarming.
Aspects of the amendments involving the largest changes to the workings of society and international relations are discussed below. Following this are annotated extracts from the WHO document (REF). Provided on the WHO website, it is currently under a process of revision to address obvious grammatical errors and improve clarity.
Resetting international human rights to a former, authoritarian model
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, agreed by the UN in the aftermath of World War Two and in the context of much of the world emerging from a colonialist yoke, is predicated on the concept that all humans are born with equal and inalienable rights, gained by the simple fact that they are born. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was intended to codify these, to prevent a return to inequality and totalitarian rule. The equality of all individuals is expressed in Article 7:
“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”
This understanding underpins the WHO constitution, and forms a basis for the modern international human rights movement and international human rights law.
The concept of States being representative of their people, and having sovereignty over territory and the laws by which their people were governed, was closely allied with this. As peoples emerged from colonialism, they would assert their authority as independent entities within boundaries that they would control. International agreements, including the existing IHR, reflected this. The WHO and other international agencies would play a supportive role and give advice, not instructions.
The proposed IHR amendments reverse these understandings. The WHO proposes that the term ‘with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ be deleted from the text, replacing them with ‘equity, coherence, inclusivity,’ vague terms the applications of which are then specifically differentiated in the text according to levels of social and economic development. The underlying equality of individuals is removed, and rights become subject to a status determined by others based on a set of criteria that they define. This entirely upends the prior understanding of the relationship of all individuals with authority, at least in non-totalitarian states.
It is a totalitarian approach to society, within which individuals may act only on the sufferance of others who wield power outside of legal sanction; specifically a feudal relationship, or one of monarch-subject without an intervening constitution. It is difficult to imagine a greater issue facing society, yet the media that is calling for reparations for past slavery is silent on a proposed international agreement consistent with its reimposition.
Giving WHO authority over member States
This authority is seen as being above states (i.e. elected or other national governments), with the specific definition of ‘recommendations’ being changed from ‘non-binding’ (by deletion) to ‘binding’ by a specific statement that States will undertake to follow (rather than ‘consider’) recommendations of the WHO. States will accept the WHO as the ‘authority’ in international public health emergencies, elevating it above their own ministries of health. Much hinges on what a Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is, and who defines it. As explained below, these amendments will widen the PHEIC definition to include any health event that a particular individual in Geneva (the Director General of the WHO) personally deems to be of actual or potential concern.
Powers to be ceded by national governments to the DG include quite specific examples that may require changes within national legal systems. These include detention of individuals, restriction of travel, the forcing of health interventions (testing, inoculation) and requirement to undergo medical examinations.
Unsurprising to observers of the COVID-19 response, these proposed restrictions on individual rights under the DG’s discretion include freedom of speech. The WHO will have power to designate opinions or information as ‘mis-information or disinformation, and require country governments to intervene and stop such expression and dissemination. This will likely run up against some national constitutions (e.g. the US) but will be a boon to many dictators and one-party regimes. It is, of course, incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but these seem no longer to be guiding principles for the WHO.
After self-declaring an emergency, the DG will have power to instruct governments to provide WHO and other countries with resources – funds and commodities. This will include direct intervention in manufacturing, increasing production of certain commodities manufactured within their borders.
Countries will cede power to the WHO over patent law and intellectual property (IP), including control of manufacturing know-how, of commodities deemed by the DG to be relevant to the potential or actual health problem that he /she has deemed of interest. This IP and manufacturing know-how may be then passed to commercial rivals at the DG’s discretion. These provisions seem to reflect a degree of stupidity, and unlike the basic removal of fundamental human rights, vested interests here may well insist on their removal from the IHR draft. Rights of people should of course be paramount, but with most media absent from the fray, it is difficult to see a level of advocacy being equal.