This is a worry because there is little discussion of the issue of the World Health Organization’s power grab by the resistance. Trial Site does a good job of summarising the present state of play. What is rolling ahead is the creation of a supranational legal authority which will decide what accounts for constituting a “pandemic,” and the policies that will follow. Given the massive influence the CCP has over WHO, we can see our fate reflected in that of communist China, especially regarding lockdowns, which is now standard operating procedure. The WHO aims to have the power to enforce mandatory vaccinations in the coming plandemics, no doubt enriching beyond measure Big Pharma. These proposals could be stopped by international action, particularly from the US, but that is unlikely under the Democrat’s regime. Hopefully African nations will short circuit it all, being less brainwashed than places like Australia.
TrialSite has chronicled the evolving International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) seeking to harmonize national public health agencies to what planners aspire as a world body with supranational legal authority upon triggering of a public health emergency. Literally, edicts passed down from this body within WHO could supersede national laws under certain emergency conditions. According to a recent TrialSite contributor, the group plans a stealthy meeting from Monday, January 9, 2023, to Friday January 13, 2023. Among other agenda items, the IHRRC now works on finalizing what has evolved into a 46-page artifact involving proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
While the changes could have profound impacts on democracies, one would never know from the lack of any mainstream media coverage nor transparency on the part of the agency itself. The proposed amendments include clauses that change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1) This is why again TrialSite has followed the IHR meeting carefully. The stakes are huge, and typically, when the focus of the mainstream media circus is elsewhere, the true news occurs where there is no coverage.
The WHO body seeks to greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” Here, the language becomes more nebulous, open to interpretation and frankly, truly troubling in potential impact. According to author, researcher, activist, natural health advocate, and WHO watcher James Roguski, the architects of these changes also seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
But does the Director General seek a power grab over the means of production in the private economy? Yes, according to critic Roguski, who communicated to TrialSite that amendments to IHR would confer the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products.” This potentially could empower this role to mandate developed states such as the United States, UK, or Germany to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
But there’s more: The proposed language would grant WHO unprecedented supranational authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine, implement contact tracing, quarantine, and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
As many labeled paranoid conspiracy theorists have intermittently warned, the WHO seeks to institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms, and a traveler’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, and 44 and Annexes 6, 7 and 8)
Along the way, Article 44A promulgates the potential redirection of unspecified billions of dollars to what Roguski labels “the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex” with no real accountability.
What about individual rights to privacy, including one’s own health record, at the national level? Article 45 could strip such a right not only in an emergency, but in situations far more nebulous, allowing for the disclosure of personal health data.
Roguski omits clauses in his analysis as well, however. For example, regarding Article 45, the proposed changes also state that “Parties may disclose to only internal and relevant personnel and process and disclose personal data where essential for the purposes of assessing and managing a public health risk.
Consent is still a must from the State Party which is asked to provide the data. Importantly, the proposed clause states, “When processing and/or disclosing personal data, State Parties, in accordance with national law, and WHO must ensure that the personal data are: (a) processed fairly and lawfully, and not further processed in a way incompatible with that purpose; (b) adequate, relevant, and not excessive in relation to that purpose; (c) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete are erased or rectified; and (d) not kept longer than necessary.”
While under these provisions in the context of health care, WHO gains powers, they are proposing provisions that respect the national laws.
Greatly expanding the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be misinformation and dis-information, (Annex 1, page 36) they also seek to establish an obligation to build, provide, and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)
The 76th World Health Assembly is scheduled to occur from Sunday May 21, 2023, to Tuesday May 30, 2023. In order for the proposed amendments to be considered during the 76th World Health Assembly, they must be submitted to the World Health Organization at least 4 months in advance. Roguski reports that the IHRRC plans to submit these proposed amendments to the WHO by Sunday, January 15, 2023.
The author and activist Roguski communicated to TrialSite that The International Health Regulations are existing, legally-binding international law. His concern: these proposed amendments, if presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, may become adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.
Assuming at least one interpretation of the IHR is correct, if such recommended amendments are adopted, member nations wouldn’t have to take internal political measures. This means, according to Roguski, the United States Senate, for example, wouldn’t need to deliver a two-thirds vote to offer their “advice and consent.” National leaders need not sign any promulgating artifacts. Ironically, just as the age of a seamless integrated globalism appears transitioning to a yet to be determined new system, existing powers if Mr. Roguski is correct in his assessment appear hell bent on using emergency health response as an ultimate pathway for a more harmonized, global order.”