The proposed World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty (CA+) and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) … are two separate and unrelated legal instruments, but individually and combined constitute a major power grab and serious threat to national and individual sovereignty from the unelected and unaccountable WHO. …
It will be legally binding, worldwide, bypassing your Parliament:
The IHR (2005) is already an instrument of international law which is legally binding on 196 countries. As such, any adopted amendments will require no UK Parliamentary scrutiny or vote. All proposed amendments (307 in the working draft) will simply be adopted at the 77th WHA meeting in May 2024 if a majority of the countries’ representatives vote yes. …
The greatest loss of freedom ever:
Many of the proposed IHR Amendments are of deep concern. These include making WHO emergency guidance legally binding (upgraded from the current ‘advisory’ status) on member states and their people, and simultaneously removing the IHR clause requiring the WHO to uphold ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms’ of individuals.
Meet your new master
Other proposed amendments empower the WHO Director General (currently the controversial Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who has no medical qualifications) single-handedly to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the definition of which could be expanded to include ‘potential’ as opposed to ‘actual’ harm. This unelected, unaccountable individual would have unprecedented levels of unfettered power and could dictate UK public health policy and restrict fundamental human rights and freedoms, with no recourse.
Taken together, the proposed amendments would empower the WHO to issue legally binding requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, border closures, travel restrictions, medication of individuals including vaccination, medical examinations etc, in a PHEIC declared by themselves.
This constitutes an existential threat to basic human rights, medical ethics and the doctor-patient relationship, and must be opposed.
There is also a push to amend the IHRs to facilitate the implementation of an International Global Health Certification system, enabling nations to enforce travel restrictions using tools such as vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, testing and recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and traveller health declarations; all tied to a personal QR code. Further amendments threaten free speech and seek to increase censorship of dissenting voices by mandating systematic global collaboration to counter dissent to official governmental or WHO guidance.
Foremost among these problems, I would suggest, are the looming WHO Pandemic treaty and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).
If implemented they would give the World Health Organisation unprecedented powers over sovereign states. These powers would include the right to mandate all manner of highly restrictive measures: lockdowns, masks, quarantines, border closures, travel restrictions, medication of individuals including vaccination and medical examinations. …
If its plans are implemented — as currently appears more likely than not — then it will represent arguably the most egregious assault on human freedom in the history of the world.
Never before, after all, has an unelected, supranational body been given such power over the lives of pretty much every single person on the planet.
The WHO won’t just be able to decide on their freedom of movement (whether, for example, it is permissible to keep them under house arrest, or in quarantine camps, as happened during lockdown) but even whether or not they live or die or spend the rest of their days as cripples as a result of a compulsory ‘vaccine’ programme.
Just what we always wanted. What psychos dreamed this up? They certainly knew better than to ask for our approval.