The comparison: IHR amendments as proposed in February 2023 and adopted on June 1, 2024.

Here are the proposed and adopted articles 1,2,3 and 6. I think the onus should be on those who claim this is a disaster, to show their evidence. I am getting tired of repeating myself.

The IHR amendments were adopted because after 2 years of negotiations, the WHA had to adopt something to save face, and it had become apparent to the globalists that they would not do any better if they delayed a decision. This was very good.

The pandemic treaty will continue to be negotiated, but it has been mostly defanged too. Yet we won’t know for a year what the final form of the treaty will be. We will remain vigilant. We will continue to educate about pandemic preparedness

Here is the original Feb. 2023 suggestion for the IHR amendments, said by the WHO staff to have been developed from 307 amendments proposed by nation states (300) and the WHO bureaucracy (7):

https://doortofreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/A_WGIHR2_7-en.pdf

The elimination of the word “non-binding” twice is GONE.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Article 2 attempted to a) expand the response to disease to a response to all risks with a potential to impact public health and b) allowed interference with human rights , livelihoods, and equitable access to health care when necessary. Both are GONE from the adopted draft.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Article 3 attempted to remove dignity, human rights and freedom of persons from the IHR. This is gone from the adopted draft.

OLD:

ADOPTED:

Note that paragraphs 2-4 of Article 3, which were widely criticized, are preexisting and were adopted many years ago.

Article 6 expected nations to provide WHO with samples (clinical data) and genetic sequence data of pathogens found in their territory, which would be added to WHO’s BioHub network and pathogen access and benefit sharing system. This is not required in the adopted draft.

OLD:

ADOPTED: