| | | |

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

  • Are Elections Honest?

    Share this article

    Probably most would agree that the two-party system keeps important topics like peace and single-payer healthcare out of the public discourse and ensures that candidates outside the mainstream will never have fair access to the election process. We know that PACs and corporate campaign finance (Citizens United) have an outsized effect on who gets…

  • Why Can States Assert that the WHO Has No Authority Over Them?

    Share this article

    The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the regulation of healthcare falls to the states.

  • Take Note: New Treaty Drafts Released

    Share this article

    Share this article Not yet official, but these appear to be real working drafts of the IHR amendments…