Without much attention from the corporate media, the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon vote on a hair-raising proposal to give itself control over health surveillance, reporting, and management worldwide.
In January, Loyce Pace, the Biden Administration’s delegate to the WHO, submitted amendments to 13 articles of the International Health Regulations. The Biden regime’s proposal is scheduled for a vote during the 75th World Health Assembly, held at the the Palais des Nations in Geneva on May 22-28.
The regulations, adopted by 194 member states in 2005, allow the WHO to declare a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” if it believes that an infectious disease outbreak has occurred in a member state—but only with the consent of said member state.
The Biden regime’s new amendments would give the WHO director-general control over the declaration of a public health emergency in a member state—even over the objection of that member state.
The proposed amendments also empower WHO regional directors to declare a public health emergency in member states.
Disconcertingly, the WHO under Article 9 would be able to rely on sources for information leading to a declaration of a public health emergency while “maintain[ing] the confidentiality of the source.”
As the World Council for Health (WCH) points out, 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.” To say nothing of China.
The WCH—a coalition of health-focused organizations and civil society groups—explains how the proposal weakens sovereignty in member states:
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.
If the World Health Assembly adopts the amendments, Article 59 says member states have six months to reject them. Silence equals consent; if a member state fails to object by November, the WHO will consider the amendments adopted in full. The director-general will disregard any objection or reservation after the November deadline.
The implications are frightening—and not difficult to see. According to the WCH, the proposed regulatory changes are nothing less than an attempt to establish “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,” the group said. “This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new pandemic treaty.”
The WCH is calling on the people of the world and all sovereign nations to band together and stop the WHO’s power grab. In a statement on its website, the group declared it “opposes the unnecessary and dystopian move toward centralized control of public health.”
This harmful model assumes that only the centralized and unaccoutable World Health Organization bureaucracy understands how to manage the health policy of every state—and, by implication, the health of each and every individual. It also assumes, wrongly, that Big Pharma’s controversial model of medicine, which is the WHO’s preferred model, is the expert guide to better health and wellness.
“Put simply, in the event of a ‘pandemic,’ the WHO’s constitution would replace every country’s constitution,” WCH’s Dr. Tess Lawrie warns on her Substack. “Whether your country’s elected government would agree or not, the WHO could impose lockdowns, testing regimes, enforce medical interventions, dictate all public health practice, and much more.”
Lawrie wrote about her participation in a call with the WHO as a part of its “public participation process,” last month:
They gave two days to make video submissions, and written submissions must be received by 5pm CEST today. That’s just five days for the world’s citizens to have their voices heard.
The World Council for Health acted fast and applied to do a two-minute video submission. The Council’s Law and Activism Committee prepared a strong submission (many thanks to them for that) and this morning, I joined the hearing to say our piece.
There were 48 people on the call at the time I tuned in. Sixteen of them were WHO staff. Others were from UNAIDS, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the UN Environment Programme, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
She shared what she heard from the globalists who were in on the call:
- Calls for “human security-centric” not just “health security-centric” policies. Apparently, they want to control not just your body but every aspect of your life.
- Fast approval of emergency diagnostics—and unified regulatory registration for diagnostics. In other words, more control.
- Equitable access to vaccines and “a mechanism to hold violators accountable.” So if a nation concludes a vaccine is unsafe, the WHO would have the power to override that and jab their population anyway.
- An absurd 100-day vaccine development timeline. Most drugs take a decade to be tested adequately and declared safe. COVID vaccines have harmed more than 3.5 million people cataloged in the WHO’s own database—and that may be a conservative number.
“If passed, the Biden Administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States,” warned world-renowned psychiatrist and author Peter Breggin in a post on Substack.
“The same threat looms over all the U.N.’s 193 member nations, all of whom belong to WHO and represent 99.44% of the world population,” Breggin wrote.
In a recent appearance on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, former U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also sounded the alarm about the proposal, saying it “creates a platform for global governance through the WHO.”
“This authority that they would be given would impact 99.4 percent of all the people in the world,” she told Bannon.
The WHO would have authority to intervene and override U.S. government policy without our permission or input. Imagine the WHO imposing on American cities the sort of harsh lockdowns the Chinese government has imposed on 26 million residents of Shanghai. They would have the authority to do so because the United States is a member of the WHO, a signatory to the International Health Regulations, and our Constitution regards treaties as the law of the land.
In short, the amended International Health Regulations would establish a platform for global governance through the World Health Organization. But if the completely botched handling of the COVID pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the WHO is a profoundly conflicted and inept agency, not a competent steward of public health.
Appearing on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast Friday, famed vaccinologist Dr. Robert Malone blasted the Biden Regime for submitting amendments to the WHO treaty that undermine the U.S. Constitution, and called it an “impeachable offense.”
“It’s hard to believe that the president of the United States and his administration are intentionally undermining the Constitution, but that’s what it is,” Dr. Malone said. “As far as I’m concerned, this constitutes a breach of his oath of office to defend the Constitution. As far as I am concerned, this is an impeachable offense.”