| | | |

The comparison: IHR amendments as proposed in February 2023 and adopted on June 1, 2024.

Share this article

Here are the proposed and adopted articles 1,2,3 and 6. I think the onus should be on those who claim this is a disaster, to show their evidence. I am getting tired of repeating myself.

The IHR amendments were adopted because after 2 years of negotiations, the WHA had to adopt something to save face, and it had become apparent to the globalists that they would not do any better if they delayed a decision. This was very good.

The pandemic treaty will continue to be negotiated, but it has been mostly defanged too. Yet we won’t know for a year what the final form of the treaty will be. We will remain vigilant. We will continue to educate about pandemic preparedness

Here is the original Feb. 2023 suggestion for the IHR amendments, said by the WHO staff to have been developed from 307 amendments proposed by nation states (300) and the WHO bureaucracy (7):

This specific reference to gene therapy was in Article 1, but is GONE from the adopted draft:

“health products” include therapeutics, vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, diagnostics, assistive products, cell- and gene-based therapies, and their components, materials, or parts.”

The elimination of the word “non-binding” twice is GONE.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Article 2 attempted to a) expand the response to disease to a response to all risks with a potential to impact public health and b) allowed interference with human rights , livelihoods, and equitable access to health care when necessary. Both are GONE from the adopted draft.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Article 3 attempted to remove dignity, human rights and freedom of persons from the IHR. This is gone from the adopted draft.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Note that paragraphs 2-4 of Article 3, which were widely criticized, are pre-existing and were adopted many years ago.

Article 6 expected nations to provide WHO with samples (clinical data) and genetic sequence data of pathogens found in their territory, which would be added to WHO’s BioHub network and pathogen access and benefit sharing system. This is not required in the adopted draft.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Similar Posts

  • Bret Weinstein discusses the WHO Risks

    Share this article

    Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist, bestselling author and co-host of the Darkhorse podcast with his wife, co-author and evolutionary biologist, Heather Heying.

  • ‘Putin could switch everything off’: how cashless Sweden went too far

    Share this article

    It is the Swedish thing to do to have coffee and cake in the morning. It is, however, unusual to be doing so with a former head of Interpol. Björn Eriksson has spent much of his professional life hunting criminals, coordinating police forces and running national emergency drills. Now his chief security concern is his country’s erasure of cash…

  • How to Protect Your Food and Medical Freedoms

    Share this article

    In my previous six articles series, we looked at the global war on farmers, the organizations pushing for the Great Food Reset, the tactics used to foist these changes on the public, the projects underway to remove your access to healthy, farm-fresh foods, the mRNA, RNA, and DNA gene therapies entering our food supply, and how the One Health agenda threatens to destroy both food freedom and medical freedom. 
    So what can we do about it? 
    The good news is that there are many things we can do.

  • Japan: Massive Protest Against the WHO

    Share this article

    Share this article The former Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications apologized to the crowd. Reposted from Aussie17.com…