Will Our Politicians Protect Us From the WHO Becoming a Global Health Legislator

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus holds a press conference at the World Health Organization's headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on Dec. 14, 2022. Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

Commentary

A discussion is taking place at the moment about amending the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) in order to give the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) legislative health emergency powers in the event of any potential suspected pandemic.

The 307 proposed changes include amending the very nature of the organization, from providing non-binding recommendations to becoming a governing body that makes legally binding and enforceable proclamations with a simple majority vote among its member states.

According to Dr Silvia Behrendt, who holds a PhD in international health regulations from Georgetown University, and Professor Amrei Müller, who teaches international humanitarian law at University College Dublin, the changes have the potential to affect the livelihoods and rights of everyone around the world by granting the WHO director-general “emergency” powers.

They said this would “securitised” the approach to managing infectious disease outbreaks.

The policies and strategies developed by WHO are naturally influenced by pharmaceutical corporations because between an estimated 75 to 88 percent of all the organization’s funding comes from the “voluntary contributions” by corporations and foundations like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI—The Vaccine Alliance.

The theory that the COVID-19 virus originated from the notorious lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been circulating since the start of the pandemic. In May 2020, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said there was “enormous evidence” the virus outbreak began in that lab.

However, the WHO has been tied with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In fact, COVID-19 was declared by the organization a “global pandemic” only after its Director-General Tedros Adhanom met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in Beijing, on March 11, 2020.

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom (L) shakes hands with Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping before a meeting in Beijing on Jan. 28, 2020. Naohiko Hatta/Pool/Getty Images

In their February 2020 report (pdf), WHO congratulated the Chinese communist regime for its “uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures” during the pandemic, including vaccine mandates and lockdown techniques that, to a great extent, were also adopted in other countries with serious consequences to human rights and the global economy.

According to Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London, the promotion of CCP propaganda by the WHO enabled the Chinese regime to “appear credible and to ignore the human societal, and economic costs of its responses.”

The organization went to the lengths of even praising the people in China for reacting to the CCP’s responses to COVID-19 “with courage and conviction,” claiming in the report that the Chinese people “largely accepted” and “fully” participated in the CCP’s totalitarian measures.

Of course, not mentioned in this report is the fact that a Chinese person who ignored these measures would face jail terms ranging from three to 10 years if the consequences are not very “serious.” Otherwise, this person would face a “life sentence or death.”

According to Mareike Ohlberg from the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies, instead of acknowledging this, WHO “preached” its confidence in the Chinese communist regime, “which does not want to make transparent how the population suffered.”

Guidelines Didn’t Protect Health

It is undeniable that many nations across the globe faithfully followed WHO’s guidelines from the start of the “pandemic.” This included strictly following the “advice” about the supposed safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines.

Yet, it is now patently clear that these COVID-19 “vaccines” prevent neither infection nor transmission of the virus.

Given WHO’s notorious history of close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such organisations even suppressed the relevant information about the safety of mRNA vaccines as well as the negative effects of lockdowns.

To make it worse, scientists have now discovered that these experimental vaccines, not the COVID-19 infection itself, may cause some very serious health issues.

A cost-benefit analysis by Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, demonstrate that mRNA vaccines may be much deadlier than COVID-19 (pdf). Their analysis looked at publicly available official data from the UK and the U.S. for all age groups and compared all-cause mortality to the risk of dying from COVID-19.

“All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID vaccination than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID death,” they concluded.

Nor Did It Protect Australians

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australia’s excess deaths rose to 12.3 percent above baseline in April 2023. There were 56,863 deaths that occurred by April 30, which is 6,220 deaths more than the average over the same period.

We must ask why, in such a highly vaccinated population, so many people have died over the last two years. Surely, it is remiss of the ABS not to report how many people, who might have died due to COVID-19, had received the injections?

If it is the case that many Australians who have died from COVID-19 over the last two years were “fully vaccinated,” then there is something really wrong with the efficacy of these vaccines.

People are tested for COVID-19 in Gold Coast, Australia, on Jan. 5, 2022. Chris Hyde/Getty Images

Further, there has been a sudden and unexpected surge of age-inappropriate deaths in at least 30 countries in the industrialized world.

Ed Dowd, in his book “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths,” believes that “the sudden deaths in young people in industrialized countries are due to mRNA vaccines.” However, the cause and effect of this hypothesis is not yet easily verifiable from data sources.

What is objectively verifiable from the ABS data is that, over and above the deaths from COVID-19, a lot more Australians died in 2022 and 2023 than usual and that by the end of 2021, 80 percent of the nation was vaccinated.

Deaths due to cardiac conditions were nine percent above the baseline average in April 2023. Other cardiac deaths from January to April 2023 were 15.4 percent higher than the baseline average. These findings are based on doctor-certified deaths.

Government authorities tend to conceal these figures, and even when they are revealed in press conferences, news outlets generally do not report them, or report them in passing halfway through an article.

Still, the numerous existing accounts are entirely credible and expose the potential dangers associated with these vaccines.

The enactment of global legislative health policies would transform WHO’s Director-General into a global emergency legislator. This could have disastrous influences on human rights, among them the right to bodily autonomy and the right to safe and effective medical products.

Fortunately, the state members, Australia included, have the authority under Article 61 of the IHR to reject these amendments that would allow WHO’s Director-General to become a global legislator on the advent of another global health emergency derived from a perceived pandemic. It needs to be explicitly made within 18 months of the adoption of the relevant amendments.

These amendments to the IHR were adopted on May 27, 2022, and will become legally binding proclamations if our politicians do not explicitly reject them by November 2023.

Since the “health recommendations” provided by WHO during the pandemic have shown not just to be unreliable but also an instigator of gross violations of fundamental human rights, we would be wise to demand our politicians reject all the proposed amendments and leave this discredited organization as soon as possible.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.