By Dr. Michael Yeadon May 31, 2023
This is a useful overview by a good person, with whom I share the same concerns.
The WHO’s “Pandemic Treaty” & the separate International Health Regulations (as amended from time to time) together create an extraordinarily wide transfer of personal sovereignty to a faceless bureaucracy on grounds of fake concern for your health and that of other people….and animals (farmed and wild) and plants (ditto).
Under a rubbish label called “One Health”, absolutely everything that happens on earth, directly or indirectly, could be argued as representing a risk to health of something or somebody & so a suitable topic for being interfered with.
The whole notion is just plausible enough to be quite difficult to counter. A most irksome factor is that many people can see that what they do might adversely affect others. This is of course not new. It’s always been true. It was true before various UN conventions in Human Rights. No objection was made back then in agreeing that each human being had inalienable rights.
So pointing out now, the concept that my choices could adversely impact other people and other living things, causes me to shrug and remind people this isn’t some qualitatively new risk.
One could argue about the extent to which my / our choices adversely affect others. I notice that the occasions where this is strikingly obvious already has treaties, laws and regulations recognizing & governing them, for example, war in its broadest sense, pollutants, assault, chemical, biological & nuclear weapons and so on.
Despite or arguably because that interconnectedness has existed, to various extents, forever, WITHOUT an overarching Treaty granting hideous powers over us, tells us that the grounds they’re using to justify this extraordinary power grab are COMPLETELY BOGUS & originate not in some desire to improve your life, or that of your family.
On the contrary, a person would need to have two fingers jammed in your ears & be wearing a blindfold not to appreciate that this is nothing less than the oldest trick in the book of how some humans force themselves on others: show them a fearful threat and demand that, being the only person or group who can rally the necessary resources to “keep you safe”, insist on setting themselves up as King or Capo. Naturally, this works out provided you don’t challenge them, whereupon the police batons and CS gas confirm most emphatically that it’s their show, not yours & you’ve to shut up or else.
No compromise with this agenda is possible. I used to think that if you behave reasonably, everything can be ironed out if you speak longer enough and in good faith. That doesn’t work when the counterparty what’s permanently to deprive you of your liberty and probably your life.
Nobody is coming to save us, but we can collectively force these evil people away, provided everybody takes whatever action they can. As to what the action should be, at a very minimum, telling ten other people about this impending power grab is a good start. “What can I do about it?” asked eight billion people
By Dr. Elizabeth Evans May 29, 2023
THE UK Medical Freedom Alliance is joining grassroots campaign groups in the UK and around the world, with US and UK politicians, in strongly opposing the proposed World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty (CA+) and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).
It is important to understand that these are two separate and unrelated legal instruments, but individually and combined constitute a major power grab and serious threat to national and individual sovereignty from the unelected and unaccountable WHO. There has been no national or international public comment or vote sought as part of the negotiation process, as the public are considered not to be relevant ‘stakeholders’ in the (largely secretive) negotiation process at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decision-making body of the WHO.
Unlike the proposed new Pandemic Treaty, which must be scrutinised by Parliament before being ratified by the Government, the IHR (2005) is already an instrument of international law which is legally binding on 196 countries. As such, any adopted amendments will require no UK Parliamentary scrutiny or vote. All proposed amendments (307 in the working draft) will simply be adopted at the 77th WHA meeting in May 2024 if a majority of the countries’ representatives vote yes.
Five new IHR amendments have already been formally adopted at the 75th WHA meeting in May 2022. The adopted amendment to Article 59 is of concern, as it significantly reduces the period within which a member state can reject future amendments (from 18 to ten months), halving the total time from a WHA vote and adoption of future amendments until they enter into force, from 24 months to 12 months. This would significantly impede the normal democratic process by introducing a considerable time restriction for lobbying groups to raise awareness and apply political pressure, and thus increase the chances of dangerous and undesirable amendments slipping through, unnoticed by the public and politicians until it is too late.
We are currently 11 months into the 18-month period (ending November 27, 2023) within which the UK Government has the right to reject any of the five amendments adopted in May 2022. To reject an amendment the Government is required actively to invoke Article 61 of the existing IHRs before the deadline passes. Inaction by the UK Government until the deadline passes is all that is required for all these amendments to become binding under international law. We are calling on the Government actively to reject the adopted amendment to Article 59.
Many of the proposed IHR Amendments are of deep concern. These include making WHO emergency guidance legally binding (upgraded from the current ‘advisory’ status) on member states and their people, and simultaneously removing the IHR clause requiring the WHO to uphold ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms’ of individuals.
Other proposed amendments empower the WHO Director General (currently the controversial Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has no medical qualifications) single-handedly to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the definition of which could be expanded to include ‘potential’ as opposed to ‘actual’ harm. This unelected, unaccountable individual would have unprecedented levels of unfettered power and could dictate UK public health policy and restrict fundamental human rights and freedoms, with no recourse.
Taken together, the proposed amendments would empower the WHO to issue legally binding requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, border closures, travel restrictions, medication of individuals including vaccination, medical examinations etc, in a PHEIC declared by themselves. This constitutes an existential threat to basic human rights, medical ethics and the doctor-patient relationship, and must be opposed.
There is also a push to amend the IHRs to facilitate the implementation of an International Global Health Certification system, enabling nations to enforce travel restrictions using tools such as vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, testing and recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and traveller health declarations; all tied to a personal QR code. Further amendments threaten free speech and seek to increase censorship of dissenting voices by mandating systematic global collaboration to counter dissent to official governmental or WHO guidance.
Both the Pandemic Treaty and IHR Amendments were discussed at the current 76th World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva, which ends tomorrow. This three-minute speech by Dr Abdullah Assiri, Co-Chair of the IHR Amendments Working Group, in the Strategic Roundtable session, as well as comments in the rest of the session from the Director General and others, shows how determined the WHO are to establish themselves as the undisputed arbiters and enforcers of health policy for all nations. The gloves are off!
In his chilling speech, Dr Assiri outlined the WHO’s desire to use the IHRs to strengthen their control over future pandemic policy, but stated that implementation of the IHRs has been problematic to date so ‘enhancements are required’. He argued that ‘the world requires a different level of legal mandates . . . prioritising actions that may restrict individual liberties . . . mandating and sharing of information, knowledge and resources and providing funds for control efforts’, lamenting that ‘the means to carry out these actions are simply not currently at hand’.
Adoption of these amendments, and the ratification of the new Pandemic Treaty, would result in a highly significant change to global public health governance, permanently undermining, even removing, national sovereignty in a health emergency and handing it over to the WHO and, potentially, their sponsors and funders. This massive overreach by the WHO, whose funding is now largely (84 per cent) from voluntary private contributions and not member states, therefore requires a swift, effective, and robust response from the UK Government, whose primary duty is to protect the hard-won autonomy of the UK public and nation.
Please visit the UKMFA #StopTheWHO Campaign Page to keep updated on calls to action, news and resources and please share them far and wide to raise public awareness of this dangerous threat to national and individual sovereignty and medical ethics. The time to protest, lobby our elected representatives and say No to this power grab is now!