What Happened at the WHO this week?

Share this article

Newsletter, October 5th 2023

We’ve been writing and talking a lot about the Pandemic Treaty, aka WHO CA+, and now most often referred to as the Accord, over the past several weeks. Let’s not lose sight of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. The Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) – WGIHR – is meeting this week.

There are two documents currently being negotiated by the WHO:

1. The Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) are a collection of proposed changes that include:

making WHO recommendations compulsory
allowing the WHO Director General to unilaterally declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), with no standards
giving the WHO the right to impose certain medical treatments and restrict others
vaccine passports

2. The Pandemic Treaty proposal includes requirements for nations to:

share biological weapons globally (“sharing of potential pandemic pathogens” through a WHO-managed Bio-Hub)
implement the “One Health” approach, which loops animals, plants, ecosystems and climate change into ‘health’
Censor health information, allowing only the WHO’s narrative to be shared
Perform microbial surveillance for pathogens in animals, humans and environmental samples to find potential pandemic pathogens
Agree to form new committees that will decide on additional treaty details in the future: giving a blank check to the WHO to impose new requirements as it sees fit, later

The Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) met this week, and the “public portion” of their meeting was broadcast. The formidable James Roguski reports on something unexpected: a plan to avoid following the rule that requires amendments to be submitted 4 months in advance of a vote by the WHO’s 194 members.

Just Say No: James Roguski Reports on the WGIHR Secret Meetings

In brief: the Working Group co-chair claimed the group will not be able to reach consensus to propose amendments by January 2024. They need more time. Problem? Article 55 of the current International Health Regulations (2005 3^rd edition) states: “The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.”

The next World Health Assembly (WHA) is in May of 2024. Thus, the amendments need to be finalized by January of 2024. In the video from October 2^nd, 2023, the Co-Chair of the WGIHR from Saudi Arabia states:

“We have been operating with the understanding the package of the proposed amendments resulting from the work of this group would be finalized by January 2024 to meet the four-month deadline stated in article 55. However, we believe that we all share the same sentiment that realistically the whole package of amendments will probably not be ready by January 2024. We would like to ask the Secretariat whether procedurally we could continue working until the 76th World Health assembly in May 2024.”

(He probably meant the 77th WHA in May of 2024). Why is this important? If they get away with it, the member nations won’t see the final version of the Amendments until right before they have to vote on them. And the world’s people may not see the Amendments until after they have passed! There will be no time for consideration or discussion. This could be a sneaky way of getting otherwise objectionable provisions accepted, simply to finish the Amendment process by the WHO’s self-imposed deadline.

So, the Co-Chair of the WGIHR suggests that they break their own rules (just a little bend, really, no big deal between friends!) and the WHO counsel, Steven Solomon, well-known from this propaganda video, tells him the excuse to be used:

“Article 55 of the IHR, including this four-month requirement has never been applied to amendments submitted collectively by a subdivision of the Health Assembly which is exactly what the WGIHR is, the WGIHR is a subdivision of the Health Assembly under rule 41 of the rules of procedure of the Health Assembly, thus there are no precedents to rely on with respect to the manner in which the four-month requirements set out in article 55 should be satisfied”

What??? There’s a clearly written rule, and you think you can change it because there isn’t a precedent for how subdivisions of the Health Assembly should work? This is obviously a weasel-word interpretation of the rules.

If you watch the videos above, you can see that members are reading from screens. The real discussions are always held in secret.

Watch the full recording of the October 2^nd WGHIR meeting.

__________________________________________

Some good news! The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill passed the House last week 216-212, and it reduced or eliminated funding for a multitude of globalist organizations, including the WHO and the WEF!

House Resolution 4665 includes the following:

“(k) World Health Organization.—None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the World Health Organization.

(l) International conventions.—None of the funds provided by this Act shall be made available to implement or support any international convention, agreement, protocol, legal instrument, or agreed outcome with legal force drafted by the intergovernmental negotiating body of the World Health Assembly or any other United Nations body until such instrument has been subject to the requirements of article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring.”

H.R. 4665 is the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, and it appears our efforts are having an impact. We know the bill still has to pass the Senate, and much could still change. But HR 4665 passing the house is a great message from the people.

Read the full text of HR 4665.

___________________________________________

How does the WHO get its money?

This is a funny thing about the WHO – it has multiple income streams, but most of the funding is “voluntary” ( i.e. you and me, Joe and Jane taxpayer, volunteered to send $300 million plus to the WHO in 2023.)

Here are some great charts from kff.org

Read the full article at kff.org

Who are the private funders of the WHO?

Here are some of the major funders, and their agenda is probably very different than yours or mine. It is interesting that different UN agencies fund each other, and that the US government funds the WHO through multiple agencies. Most interesting is the role of many Bill Gates organizations and partners, which would be expected to have major influence on WHO policies.