I have been summarising the views of leading critics of the significance of the passing of the World Health Organization International Health Regulations. The consensus view from our side of politics is that all the problematic things seen with the pandemic treaty have been avoided, except the requirement to monitor and control misinformation, which governments have been doing anyway, especially the Australian New World Order government. But Dr Malone thinks this matter will be made worse with the International Health Regulations:
"The IHR amendments retain troubling language regarding censorship. These provisions have been buried in Annex 1,A.2.c., which requires State Parties to "develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities . . . in relation to . . . surveillance . . . and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation."
The requirement that nations "address" "misinformation and disinformation" is fraught with opportunities for abuse. None of these terms is defined in the document. Does "addressing" it mean censoring it, and possibly punishing those who have offered divergent opinions? We have already seen how doctors and scientists who disagreed with the WHO narrative under Covid 19 were censored for their views – views that turned out to be true. Some who offered protocols not recommended by the WHO even had their licenses to practice medicine threatened or suspended. How much worse will this censorship be if it is baked in as a requirement to the International Health Regulations?"
Dr Malone makes the point that the International Health Regulation amendments were prepared in secret, and submitted to the World Health Assembly late at the last day of the meeting. By the WHO's own regulations, under Article 55, there should have been four months given for nations to review the amendments, but this was disregarded to push the amendments through. And there was not an actual vote; the WHO said that a "consensus" was reached, even though many nation's representatives were not even present in the room at the time! No democracy here; we are the World Health Organization!
This raises the strategy for nation states, and states within nations, to legislate against these proposals. The point does arise as well, about a legal challenge to the International Health Regulations, either at international law, which will require a state actor to initiate, and/or for national courts to address the issue. It is likely that we will see nothing done in Australia, which is fully on board with even the pandemic treaty, but resistance can come from Republican US states. We will see.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/who-international-health-regulations
"The 77th meeting of the World Health Assembly concluded Saturday June 01, 2024. This particular Assembly meeting, the first following the COVIDcrisis, failed to achieve agreement on wording or passage of a proposed World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic "treaty", also referred to as an "agreement". In parallel to the treaty, the World Health Assembly (in close cooperation with the US HHS/Biden administration) has been working on "updating" the existing (2005) International Health Regulations (IHR) agreement, which historically functioned as a voluntary accord establishing international norms for reporting, managing, and cooperating in matters relating to infectious diseases and infectious disease outbreaks (including "pandemics").
In blatant disregard for established protocol and procedures, sweeping IHR amendments were prepared behind closed doors, and then both submitted for consideration and accepted by the World Health Assembly quite literally in the last moments of a meeting which stretched late into Saturday night, the last day of the meeting schedule. Although the "Article 55" rules and regulations for amending the IHR explicitly require that "the text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration", the requirement of four months for review was disregarded in a rush to produce some tangible deliverable from the Assembly. This hasty and illegal action was taken in direct violation of its own charter, once again demonstrating an arbitrary and capricious disregard of established rules and precedent by the WHO under the leadership of the Director-General.
There was no actual vote to confirm and approve these amendments. According to the WHO, this was achieved by "consensus" among this unelected insider conclave rather than a vote; "Countries agreed by consensus to amend the International Health Regulations, which were last changed in 2005, such as by defining the term "pandemic emergency" and helping developing countries to gain better access to financing and medical products", a WHO statement reported, continuing that "countries" agreed to complete negotiations on the pandemic accord with the year, "at the latest".
Representatives from many WHO member nation-states were not in the room, and the ones that were there were encouraged to keep quiet. After the non-vote, there was giddy celebration of this achievement, clearly demonstrating the lack of sombre maturity, commitment to both rules and careful diplomatic consensus, and absence of serious intent and purpose warranted by the topic. This was clearly an insider clique acting unilaterally to circumvent normal process, and mirrors a similar process used to confirm the re-appointment of Tedros to the Director-General position. This unelected WHO clique of "true believers" clearly signals that it believes itself above any requirements to comply with established international norms and standards, including its own. By their actions you will know them; the giddy arrogance of these actions predict that WHO decision making will continue to be arbitrary, capricious, and politicized, and will continue to reflect the will of various insider interest groups (and nation-states) rather than anything even approximating a broad-based international consensus.
Here in the United States, these unilateral actions, backed by an executive branch and bureaucracy which repeatedly demonstrates a deep distain for the rule of law and the US Constitution, may require that individual States pass legislation to reject the WHO Amendments to IHR based on the illegality of the process and violation of Article 55. Similar discussions are occurring in the UK and across many WHO member states, adding momentum to the emerging WHO-exit movement.
For those not familiar, the current WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is neither a physician nor a trained public health or epidemiology specialist, but rather is an Ethiopian microbiologist, malaria researcher, and politician.
The hastily approved IHR consolidate virtually unchecked authority and power of the Director-General to declare public health emergencies and pandemics as he/she may choose to define them, and thereby to trigger and guide allocation of global resources as well as a wide range of public health actions and guidances. These activities include recommendations relating to "persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels", but based on earlier draft language of proposed IHR amendments and the WHO pandemic "accord" are likely to extend to both invasive national surveillance and mandated public health "interventions" such as vaccines and non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing and lockdowns. Not to mention the continuing weaponization of public health messaging via censorship of dissenting voices and liberal use of the fear-based tactics known as information or psychological bioterrorism to mobilize public opinion in favor of WHO objectives.
The IHR amendments retain troubling language regarding censorship. These provisions have been buried in Annex 1,A.2.c., which requires State Parties to "develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities . . . in relation to . . . surveillance . . . and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation."
The requirement that nations "address" "misinformation and disinformation" is fraught with opportunities for abuse. None of these terms is defined in the document. Does "addressing" it mean censoring it, and possibly punishing those who have offered divergent opinions? We have already seen how doctors and scientists who disagreed with the WHO narrative under Covid 19 were censored for their views – views that turned out to be true. Some who offered protocols not recommended by the WHO even had their licenses to practice medicine threatened or suspended. How much worse will this censorship be if it is baked in as a requirement to the International Health Regulations?"