We call on all governments to reject the WHO’s abuse of law and sovereignty
On Saturday night, June 1, 2024, in profane proceedings at the 77th World Health Assembly, (WHA), a small number of member state delegates sat in stony silence as resolution after resolution was passed without a single objection. Silence means ‘I have no objection’.
The day before, on Friday 31st May, a group of World Health Assembly delegates told Dutch lawyer Meike Terhorst, who was delivering a notice to WHO Director General Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus from Dutch parliamentarians, that the delegates had been booked one way tickets to Geneva and told they were not allowed to leave until they had said yes to WHO’s treaties. It was not possible to verify whether this was indeed the case for other delegates.
However, the silence procedure last night, after a week of tiresome meetings and the threat of having to reach agreement or else, was akin to a classroom of children complying with the teacher’s demand for silence at the end of the day, because they want to be let out of class.
This entire WHO-led power grab is undemocratic, unlawful and invalid in many ways.
An attempt to merge the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments
The amendments to the legally binding IHR 2005 in essence provide for a transfer of Member State (country) power to the World Health Organization’s Director-General, as and when the Director General declares a pandemic or other ‘public health emergency of international concern’ (PHEIC). This transfer of powers is not valid or lawful.
In the version of the IHR ostensibly approved this weekend in Geneva, a new term – pandemic emergencies – has been added throughout the document.
This appears to be an attempt by WHO negotiators to combine elements of the failed pandemic treaty negotiations into the IHR document, giving the WHO Director-General sweeping power to declare a ‘pandemic emergency’ if he thinks a communicable disease (e.g. influenza) has:
- A high risk of having wide geographical spread;
- a high risk of exceeding the capacity to respond;
- a high risk of causing social and/or economic disruption, including to trade and travel; and
- requires a coordinated international action and whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach.
There is nothing in this definition of ‘pandemic emergency’ that speaks to an emergency being a threat to the life of a nation, which is a fundamental legal requirement to declaring a public health emergency. The disease in question does not need to be serious or even be wide-spread. Notably, health and health outcomes are not mentioned.
Following WHO’s Covid-19 declaration, it was the WHO’s Covid-19 policies and recommendations that led to the social, economic, trade and travel disruption, not the illness, which could have been largely prevented with the appropriate steps. It was also these policies that has led to immeasurable harm to the life of people and nations. Thus, the most significant public health emergency (PHEIC) of our times is an iatrogenic emergency caused by WHO policies and recommendations.
An Iatrogenic Emergency
Iatrogenesis is the causation of a disease, a harmful complication, or other ill effect by any medical activity, including diagnosis, intervention, error, or negligence. The World Council for Health notes that the world is currently afflicted by an iatrogenic emergency caused by erroneous advice and recommendations issued the WHO following their Covid-19 pandemic declaration, which led to the inappropriate roll out of an experimental health products it erroneously deemed ‘relevant health products’ by the ‘approved’ IHR’s new nomenclature. The WHO must never be in a position to do this again.
Urgent Notices Served
On May 31, 2024, three urgent notices were served on the Director-General of the WHO Dr Ghebreyesus and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Antonio Guterres.
Directly relevant to the WHA 77 and the right to public participation, these urgent notices included a:
- Declaration of Invalidity
- Statement of Dispute
- Notice of Objection
The Notices, which were drafted by South African lawyer Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, can be found on the World Council for Health Website.
Taking Action
People in every country, supported by their WCH Country Council, will be calling upon their governments to reject this amended IHR 2005 document. At the very least, the amendment process is in clear breach of Article 55 of the International Health Regulations. In addition, there was no actual voting process at the World Health Assembly 77, and, member state representatives were reportedly threatened into being silent, which many refuse to be.
The International Health Regulations of 2005 was originally intended as a document of cooperation and should never have far-reaching effects on country governance, democracy and personal autonomy. These amendments provide new legal obligations of Member States that will have significant effects on people in all countries. Thus, through the human rights and constitutional law in every country, these amendments need to be subject to widespread public engagement, and inevitably must be rejected, as should the proposed new pandemic treaty, which was temporarily postponed Moreover, the WHO is acting outside its scope of authority as per its own Constitution. The world realises the WHO can no longer be trusted.
There is a Better Way for Health, Freedom and Sovereignty.
