Intended to form part of international law, preparations for the creation of a World Health Organisation (“WHO”) Pandemic Treaty or Pandemic Accord began in 2001.
Far from strengthening the prevention of, preparedness for and response to future pandemics as the latest draft of the text claims, its implementation could severely undermine democracy by limiting the ability of national parliaments to make crucial healthcare decisions in the best interests of their citizens.
Aided by proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations of 2005, the Treaty threatens to transform the WHO into a global health dictatorship.
The WHO Pandemic Treaty and Amendments to the International Health Regulations: Enabling a Global Health Dictatorship
The sweeping influence exerted by WHO during the covid-19 pandemic was the result of revised International Health Regulations (“IHR”) passed at a meeting of the World Health Assembly (“WHA”) in 2005. The decision-making body of the WHO, the WHA’s meetings are held annually in Geneva, Switzerland, and attended by delegations from the WHO’s 194 Member States.
Prior to 2005, WHO had principally acted as a coordinator, assistant or collaborator to the public health services and drug regulatory authorities of its Member States. But with the passing of the revised IHR, WHO took on vast new powers that were unprecedented in the field of global health. These essentially enable it to decide when a public health emergency of international concern exists and to make key decisions regarding what measures should be implemented in response. Under the regulations, the WHO’s recommended actions can include vaccination, quarantine, isolation, drug treatment and contact tracing, among others.
Now, however, in the wake of the covid-19 pandemic, the road is being prepared for WHO’s already considerable powers to be expanded still further. Particularly worryingly, the latest draft of the proposed amendments to the regulations shows that clauses that previously made their provisions non-binding are being reworded – effectively making them mandatory and giving WHO real decision-making powers over its Member States. As such, claims that the planned Pandemic Treaty will not undermine national sovereignty are at best disingenuous, as its text has to be viewed in light of the increased authority that, if approved, will be given to WHO under the amended IHR.
WHO thinks you have “too much information”
The growing concern over the WHO Pandemic Treaty isn’t simply that it could undermine democracy by preventing national parliaments from being able to make crucial healthcare decisions in the best interests of their citizens. Through introducing the term “infodemic,” the treaty seems to be attempting to prevent the spread of truthful information about science-based natural health approaches and dangerous experimental vaccines. Without citing any evidence, the text claims that having “too much information” available during a disease outbreak causes “confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health.” Suggesting who this wording is primarily intended to benefit – namely, WHO itself – the text states that having too much information apparently “leads to mistrust in health authorities.” To counter this, “infodemic management, at local, national, regional and international levels,” is proposed.
The pandemic treaty also dramatically expands WHO’s areas of interest. Through what it terms a “One Health approach,” the global body now intends to be able to make decisions in health matters related to animals, ecosystems, and the environment. The treaty specifically refers to “taking action on climate change,” for example. Several observers have suggested that with these extended powers, WHO could potentially declare an environmental or climate emergency and enforce lockdowns.
Given the global body’s close links to Bill Gates and the pharma industry and the hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding it receives from them, there is a growing worldwide recognition that this looming power grab represents a fundamental threat to democracy. At the very least, the increasing transfer of powers to WHO raises important questions regarding national sovereignty and personal liberty.
Ultimately, if its handling of the covid-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that WHO has sold its soul to corporate interests and cannot be trusted to make important decisions on global health. It is surely in all of our interests to demand that our national lawmakers do not sign away the sovereignty that the WHO is seeking.
About the Author
Paul Anthony Taylor is the Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the co-authors of the Foundation’s book, ‘The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU‘’. The Dr. Rath Health Foundation is a non-profit organisation dedicated to improving human health on a global scale through research, education, and the defence of patients’ rights to choose natural health therapies.
Taylor is also the Foundation’s expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission (“CAC”) and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.
The CAC is an international organisation run jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (“FAO”) and the World Health Organisation (“WHO”). It develops and adopts food standards that serve as a reference for international food trade and coordinates all food standards work done by international governmental and non-governmental organisations.