Things people have asked me for: Resources identifying document citations, more on states rights; Sovereignty Coalition Webinars; Good recent interviews

We have a great website up now with loads of information for activists--details will be in the next post

Here is that new website to help activists turn this coup around:

https://doortofreedom.org/state-leaders-and-activists/#sovcoalitionmeeting

Interview with Marc Morano on TNT: https://rumble.com/v4o5bgi-dr.-meryl-nass-on-unleashed-with-marc-morano-06-april-2024.html

Interview with Alison Steinberg on OAN

1. 5 minute clip: https://rumble.com/v4npove-in-focus-la-asses-bill-to-block-who-wef-and-un-regulations-with-dr.-meryl-n.html

2. Full 15 minute version: https://doortofreedom.org/2024/04/09/one-american-news-in-focus/

More evidence that the federal government must acknowledge states’ rights in its negotiations with the WHO:

As recently as February 1, 2024, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) chimed in again on the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments. In a lawyerly statement that gives away as little as possible, the CRS still acknowledged that the federal government had made a RESERVATION to the 2005 version of the IHR, because it was limited by the concept of states rights — so could not promise full allegiance to the WHO’s International Health Regulations:

“The United States agreed to be bound by the

obligations of IHR (2005) with the reservation that aspects

of IHR implementation might be left to U.S. state

governments rather than the federal government.”

Someone wanted references to the 2 WHO documents and how their egregious provisions abrogate US Constitutional law, with reference to where in the documents various provisions can be found. That is hard because there have been 4 versions of the treaty made public since February 14 and I cannot keep changing all my documents each time a new version appears. But see below for a recent version. PT stands for Pandemic Treaty.

Last April 2023 I did create such a document for the Amendments, with assistance from attorney Van Dinh, and there has not been a newer official version of the Amendments since then.

BRIEFING NOTES:  PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE W.H.O.'S INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS

Congressional Briefing Notes

95.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

·               The build-out of a massive and expensive global biosecurity system is underway, allegedly to improve our preparedness for future pandemics or biological terrorism.  In aid of this agenda two documents are being prepared through the WHO:  a broad series of amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (2005) (IHRs)^[1] and a proposed pandemic treaty, accord or instrument^[2] (it has no definite name yet).

·               A treaty requires a two-third vote of the Health Assembly (194 States) to be adopted and is binding to only States that have ratified or accepted it (Article 19 and 20, WHO Constitution). It could potentially be enacted into force in the US as an executive agreement by a simple signature, without Senate ratification.

·               However, the IHRs and any amendments thereto are adopted by simple majority, and become binding to all WHO Member States that didn’t reject or make reservations to them within predefined timeframes (Articles 21 and 22, WHO Constitution; Rule 72, Rules of procedures of the World Health Assembly).

·               In 2022 amendments to 5 articles of the IHRs were considered in opaque committee meetings during the 75th annual meeting, and then adopted 'by consensus' without a formal vote^[3]. Amendments are passed by simple majority.

·               The current draft of the IHR Amendments would allow the Director-General of WHO or Regional Directors to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), or the potential for one, without meeting any specific criteria (Article 12).  The WHO would then assume management of the PHEIC and issue binding directives to concerned States.

1.              PHEICS and potential PHEICs could be declared without the agreement of the concerned State or States.

2.              WHO's unelected officials (Director-General, Regional Directors, technical staff) could dictate measures including quarantines, testing and vaccination requirements, lockdowns, border closures, etc.

·               WHO officials would not be accountable for their decisions.

·               Proposed Article 3 removes rights that have been intrinsic to the IHRs until now.

Removed are basic rights under international law.  Struck from the 2005 IHRs is the crucial guarantee of human rights as a foundation of public health:  "The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons..."

This has been replaced with the following legally meaningless phrase: "based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence..." 

·               Among many egregious proposals, one example encapsulates the extraordinary nature of what is being proposed.  Proposed article 43.4 notes that the WHO could ban the use of certain medications or other measures during a pandemic, since its 'recommendations' would be binding:

"WHO shall make recommendations to the State Party concerned to modify or rescind the application of the additional health measures in case of finding such measures as disproportionate or excessive. The Director General shall convene an Emergency Committee for the purposes of this paragraph."

·               States' obligations in the proposed Amendments would include:

1.     Conducting extensive biological surveillance of microorganisms and people (Article 5);

2.     Monitoring mainstream and social media and to censor “false and unreliable information” regarding WHO-designated public health threats (Article 44.1(h)(new));

3.     Providing medical supplies for use by other States as determined by the WHO (New Article 13A);

4.     Giving up intellectual property for use by other States or third parties (New Article 13A);

5.     Transferring genetic sequence data for "pathogens capable of causing pandemics and epidemics or other high-risk situations" to other Nations or third parties, despite the risks this entails (Article 44.1(f) (new)).

·               The engagement of WHO with non-State actors (non-governmental organizations, private sector, philanthropic foundations, and academic foundations) is foreseen in multiple proposals, raising enormous concerns about conflict of interest (Articles 12. New 7, 13. New 7, New 13A.7).

·               It is expected that to implement these proposals, WHO will require a massive increase in its budget.  The World Bank estimated the cost at over $40 billion per year, roughly ten times the current WHO budget.

·               The role of the WHO will change from assisting Nations to manage public health challenges on request, to becoming the manager of a massive network of bio-surveillance activities and becoming the enforcer of its public health policies.

---

^[1] https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf

^[2] https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

^[3] A/75/67 (https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_67(draft)-en.pdf)