Why the WHO’s New Rules Should Be Rejected

Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director General of the WHO

Dear Friend,

I recently returned from Geneva, where the World Health Assembly met from May 27 to June 1.  More on this in future newsletters.

The World Health Assembly just passed Amendments to the International Health Regulations.  The Amendments themselves and the manner in which they were passed are both highly problematic, even alarming.  You can read my concerns here:

PJ Media:  Why the WHO’s Updated Rules Should Alarm You

LifeSiteNews:  WHO Passes Invalid Health Regulations That Must Be Rejected

The fact that the WHO has passed the Amendments to the International Health Regulations is appalling on several fronts. 

The manner in which these were passed flagrantly violates the WHO’s own rules.  Under Article 55 of the International Health Regulations, “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.”  That deadline passed on January 27, 2024.

In defiance of this requirement, the WHO negotiated the draft Amendments until the last minute, releasing the final text just hours before the final vote.

This violation prevented governments and civil society from being able to analyze this document and discern its implications.

The WHO’s tossing out of its own rule indicates its disregard for the rule of law.  If it is willing to disregard such an important safeguard as Article 55, what is stopping it from disregarding any other provision in the IHRs?  If it is willing to ignore its own laws, why would we expect it to honor ours?

For this reason, The Amendments to the IHR are invalid and should be rejected.

Further, the Amendments that passed on June 2 retain troubling language regarding censorship.  These provisions have been buried in Annex 1,A.2.c., which requires State Parties to “develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities . . . in relation to… surveillance . . . and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.”

The requirement that nations “address” “misinformation and disinformation” is fraught with opportunities for abuse.  None of these terms is defined in the document.  Does “addressing” it mean censoring it, and possibly punishing those who have offered divergent opinions?  We have already seen how doctors and scientists who disagreed with the WHO narrative under Covid 19 were censored for their views – views that turned out to be true.  Some who offered protocols not recommended by the WHO even had their licenses to practice medicine threatened or suspended.  How much worse will this censorship be if it is baked in as a requirement to the International Health Regulations?

The “surveillance” requirement does not specify what is to be surveilled.  The IHR amendments, however, should be read together with the proposed Pandemic Treaty, which the WHO is continuing to negotiate.  Article 5 of the most recent draft of the Treaty sets forth the “One Health Approach,” which connects and balances human, animal, plant and environmental health, giving a pretext for surveillance on all these fronts. 

Meanwhile, Article 4: Pandemic Prevention and Public Health Surveillance, states:

2 bis. The Parties recognize that environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic [climate change caused by people], and economic factors increase the risk of pandemics and endeavor to identify these factors and take them into consideration in the development and implementation of relevant policies . . .”

Through the “One Health” approach, the WHO is asserting its authority over all aspects of life on earth, all of which will be surveilled.

Regarding the IHR, Article 35 details the requirements of “Health Documents,” including those in digital format.  The system of digital health documents is consistent with, and in my opinion a precursor to, the Digital IDs described by the World Economic Forum.  According to the attached WEF Chart, people will need a Digital ID to:

Access healthcare insurance and treatment

Open bank accounts and carry out online transactions


Access Humanitarian Services

Shop and conduct business transactions

Participate in social media

Pay taxes, vote, collect government benefits

Own a communication device [such as a cell phone or a computer

In other words, individuals will need Digital IDs to access almost every aspect of civilized society.  All of our actions, taken with the use of Digital IDs, will be tracked and traced.  If we step out of line, we can be punished by, for example, being severed from our bank accounts and credit cards – similar to what happened to the Canadian Truckers. Digital IDs are a form of mass surveillance and totalitarian control.

These Digital IDs are currently being rolled out by the World Health Organization in collaboration with the European Union.

It is concerning that the IHR Amendments mention “pandemic emergency” 16 times.  “Pandemic emergency” is a euphemism for a potential pandemic.  See Article 1, Definitions.  The Amendments to the IHR expand the WHO’s authority beyond actual pandemics to potential pandemics – as decided by the Director General.

It is also troubling that the words, “prepare” or “preparedness” are used nine additional times in the Amended IHRs as compared with the 2005 IHRs.  This repeated emphasis on preparedness expands the authority of the WHO from response during a pandemic to times between pandemics.  Since nations must always be in a state of preparedness, the WHO will be exercising its expanded authority in perpetuity.

The IHR Amendments, taken together with the impending Pandemic Treaty, will usher in a global, totalitarian bio-tech surveillance police state.  Their adoption just hours after their disclosure is invalid and must be rejected.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.