The WHO hastily adopted a new set of amendments to the International Health regulations on June 1.

What does this mean, and why was this a huge win for us?

Dear Friends,

Door to Freedom was formed last July for the express purpose of stopping or defanging the WHO’s effort to take over control of public health globally:

• to develop a network of laboratories for sharing and researching potential pandemic pathogens (a.k.a. biowarfare agents) which would greatly increase the risk of lab leaks and future pandemics
• to adopt the One Health agenda, designed to balance the health of humans, animals, plants and ecosystems while putting all under the management of the WHO
• to expand the concept of health to include climate change, ecosystem health, or anything that might pose a risk to health–again, granting very broad powers to the WHO
• to demand surveillance and censorship of citizen’ online activities
• to declare public health emergencies with no standards, and then issue orders to its member nations of what they must do in response
• to manage global rollouts of unlicensed and potentially untested vaccines in record time, without liability
• to remove human rights, dignity and freedom of persons from the pandemic response

We succeeded beyond our dreams. Yes, a final version of the IHR was adopted, but it did not have any of the awful provisions that had been included initially. None of the bullet points above were included in the final document. I was pretty sure something would be adopted, because the WHO staff and diplomats had to conclude their 2-year process and declare some kind of win to save face.

The pandemic treaty, even though it too was stripped of virtually all the onerous sections, was unable to be concluded. The 194 member nations of the WHO agreed to give the treaty one more year of negotiations.

The globalists got essentially nothing that was important to them. By brazenly going for broke with the original versions of the treaty and amendments, they not only failed to achieve their goals, but they have lost the advantage of surprise and stealth, which they were counting on to get these treaties passed. Now the world knows what they are up to, and millions of people now understand that “health” and fear of pandemics was being used to effect a global coup.  

I predict that they will not be able to use the WHO in this way any time soon.

What is the meaning of the adopted IHR amendments and what has been taken out?

Below are some major points that I want to clarify, as there has been a lot of confusion about them

• The words “non-binding” have been added back in the beginning of the document, and so advice remains advice, not orders
• There are a few “binding” provisions in the current IHR, which were inconsequential for almost everyone, and these have not changed.
• Potential medical mandates from the WHO are gone:  for vaccines, masks, lockdowns, quarantines, tests and medical examinations
• The requirement for digital vaccine passports is gone, which would serve as a digital ID and gateway to digital tracking, digital money, etc.  The WHO is pushing digital IDs as a “right” in developing countries.
• The ability of the WHO to restrict access to medications is gone
• The requirement for countries to pass laws demanded by WHO is gone

We recommend you look at the adopted IHR here. You can compare it to the draft IHR that was rolled out in February 2023, which had a large number of nasty provisions that are absent from the final document. You can see that all the really dangerous provisions are gone.

What’s next?

For nations that issued a relevant reservation or rejection of the 2022 amendments, which includes Slovakia, New Zealand, Iran, probably the Netherlands and possibly other nations, the newly passed amendments will go into effect in 2 years, on June 1, 2026—unless these nations make a reservation or rejection of them within 18 months.

For all other nations the amendments will go into effect in 1 year, on June 1, 2025 unless they reserve or reject some or all of the amendments within 10 months.

What about the WHO failing to follow its own rules?

    1. The final targeted set of amendments was not presented to the member nations 4 months ahead of their consideration, as required by IHR Article 55 paragraph 2, and
    2. The amendments passed in 2022 were not voted on in the plenary session

These would be excellent legal arguments if you could take the WHO to court, but unfortunately you cannot. The only authority over the WHO is the UN, which is not bothered by these illegalities. The UN itself does similar things. While the nation states could complain, so far they have failed to do so.

What should we do now?

Some of our nations are trying to institute the same types of rules (in many cases) that the WHO tried to implement, and a similar biosecurity agenda. We need to remain vigilant. Share information about your country with us, and we will post and share it.

Educating ourselves, then educating our lawmakers, which was so successful in this battle, remains our #1 strategy. The many current election campaigns give us an opportunity to raise the issue with candidates–hopefully they will see that fighting globalization and centralization of control is a popular position. Ending gain-of-function research and truly reducing the risk of pandemics coming from labs should be a winning strategy for politicians, so let’s remind them of it.

Meryl Nass, MD