The WHO’s treaty documents - Review & Commentary
The WHO is amending the 2005 International Health Regulations and creating a new Pandemic Treaty. They both contain wording that we should all be aware of and open to discuss.
We share the concerns of Dr David Bell, an Australian clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and former WHO scientific and medical officer who says:
“the two agreements, as currently drafted, will hand the WHO the authority to order measures including significant financial contributions by individual states, censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency of its own declaring.”
David Bell is also not alone in his concerns. The amendments to the 2005 IHRs has been reviewed by the IHR Review Committee. The IHR Review Committee is an Expert Advisory Panel made up of 17 experts and specialists that was established especially for the sole purpose “to provide technical recommendations to the WHO’s Director-General on the 300+ IHRAs”.
In February 2023, a Review Committee considered the 300+ IHRAs. The 20 Review Committee were critical of the 300+ IHRAs pointing out that what was proposed:
raised “sovereignty concerns” for Member States (Article 12);
changed the nature of the WHO’s recommendations from “non-binding to binding, and giving a binding effect” (Article 1);
“replace[d] “public health risk” with “all risks with a potential to impact public health” may not increase the clarity of this Article.”” (Article 2);
defied individual human rights with the removal of the words “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” as an overarching principle in the first paragraph, and notes that the concepts of human rights, dignity and fundamental freedoms are clearly defined within the framework of treaties to which many of the States Parties to the Regulations have adhered.” (Article 3);
proposed universal implementation of health/vaccine passports “the Committee is concerned that such a requirement may burden travellers, and may even raise ethical and discrimination-related concerns .” (Articles 23, 35 and 36).
It is unclear whether the IHR Review Committee’s concerns have been considered by the Working Group since we have not seen any further updates on the 300+ IHRAs since they were first released 17 December 2022.
Dr David Bell further concerns reiterate those of the IHR Review Committee:
“the amendments to the IHR … constitute a dangerous increase in power and authority bestowed on just one person. The Director General would be able to proclaim health emergencies, whether real or potential, on any health-related matter that they, influenced by their private and corporate funders, say is a threat. The WHO would be able to issue legally binding directions to member states and their citizens. In light of the catastrophic harms the WHO’s policies have caused during this pandemic, probably greater than the virus itself, the potential economic and health-related harms of such power cannot be overstated. There is a vast pandemic industry waiting for these buttons to be pushed and I am in no doubt that policymakers should reject WHO’s pandemic proposals.”
The 300+ IHRAs are potentially harmful as they:
Have a Member States cede its sovereignty with respect to health to the WHO
The WHO’s Director General will be granted the power to proclaim potential, not actual, health emergencies
The fundamental principle of individual human rights and choices are replaced for the collective concepts of equity, inclusivity and cohesion
Health or travel passes are squarely on the table
Member States will be required to supply information to the WHO, and the WHO can chose to use, share or withhold any information it sees fit
Can the WHA and the WHO give themselves this power?
No, of course they can’t. They can only get this power if our government gives it to them!
We are also concerned by what it proposed in the documents, as it appears to be well outside the authority of the World Health Assembly and what it can regulations concerning. The WHO’s Constitution at Article 21 limits the authority to:
“Article 21 The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.” (emphasis added)
Further, Article 23 of the Constitution makes clear “the WHA only has the authority to make recommendations with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization.”
What the 300+ propose goes well outside ‘procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease’.