The IHR as amended yesterday is benign. I have highlighted relevant changes to assist readers to confirm this

Everything in plain text is UNCHANGED from the 2005 (existing) version of the IHR. Everything bolded (except section headings) is new language (= amendments).

June 1 Ihrs W: Nass Highlights

957KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

There are two major arguments (and many minor ones that I have previously detailed here and here) that the WHO has not followed its own procedures and therefore:

1. the decision about the IHR yesterday should be null and void because the final targeted set of amendments was not presented to the member nations 4 months ahead of their consideration, as required by IHR Article 55 paragraph 2, and

2. the amendments passed in 2022 were not voted on in the plenary session and therefore should be null and void

However, no member nations at this point have challenged the validity of these procedures, and if they do not, the people and their elected representatives have found no way to stop the WHO.

Assuming the WHO is not challenged over its many procedural violations, this is what we can expect:

• For nations that issued a relevant reservation or rejection of the 2022 amendments, including Slovakia, New Zealand, Iran, probably the Netherlands and possibly other nations, the newly passed amendments will go into effect in 2 years, on June 1, 2026—unless these nations make a reservation or rejection of them within 18 months.

• For all other nations the amendments will go into effect in 1 year, on June 1, 2025 unless they reserve or reject within 10 months.

This means every nation has at a minimum 10 months to avoid any provisions it does not like in the newly amended document. It simply has to write to the WHO and say it rejects whatever it does not like. In the US, the next President can do this until April 1, 2025.

Slovakia’s diplomat did not “break consensus” to stop the approval of the document, but shortly afterward, when given the opportunity, stated that Slovakia would be rejecting the amended IHR.

What I have been hearing is that people are unhappy with various provisions of the document, without realizing that most of the issues they dislike are in the existing IHR and have been there for many years. Vaccine certificates have always been in the IHRs, for example. The changes to vaccine certificates are minor, compared to what was proposed, and btw they are recommendations, not orders from the WHO. They will not need to be digital, which is a crucial point—as they were going to be the gateway to digital identity, digital money and massively increased surveillance. They need to be signed by a doctor, which was already true in many countries.

I will provide more detail tomorrow (it’s midnight) and I will provide examples of some of the terrible things that were proposed but got scuttled. And then you too will realize what a hail of bullets we have dodged.

I realize the IHR is written in legalese and it is hard for those who have not pored over every version of the IHRs (as I have) to contextualize the changes. I will do my very best to clarify.

I really recommend you look at the document I embedded above. The yellow highlights are things I think are important to note, and the one blue highlight is my comment. Remember, every single addition to the existing IHR has been bolded. If it is not bolded, it has been present in the IHRs since at least 2007.