Every Elite Has a Plan Until They Get Punched in the Face by The People
Breaking Down America the Globalist Way
Using the famous Mike Tyson quote, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face,” Oliver notes the scheme and grand designs of the globalists may seem omnipotent, but only so long as it takes for the angered masses to assemble in common resolve. The elites are vulnerable despite their seemingly endless efforts to promote themselves as untouchable. Their weakness is their limited number.
Every Elite Has a Plan Until They Get Punched in the Face by The People
Bogus Predictions from the Elite since 1990
Do You Really Understand Your Risk of Dying From COVID?
Metabolic features of the cell danger response☆
What is truly the goal of this Agenda 2030 globalist plan?
IS there a new respiratory virus, or are people breathing too much shit from the air, smoke from manufactured fires, to the chemicals being dumped in the sky, or the crap in the water, shitty ionizing radiation from phones, towers, etc? What is the solution? Block EMF, take vitamins, charge yourself in the sun and with grounding? Many ideas needing quick practical solution.
WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan
Secret Meetings at the WHO
Rise of the Robot-Child
Bogus predictions from the so-called Elite since 1990
1966: Oil will be gone in 10 years.
1967: Famine by 1975.
1969 We will all disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989 (Paul Ehrlich).
1969: World-wide plague, ecological catastrophe by end of 20th century.
1970: Oceans dead in a decade, food rationing by 1980.
1970: Natural resource depletion
1971: An ice age will hit us by 2000.
1972: Oil depletion by 1992.
1972: Urban citizens will require gas masks by 1985.
1974: We will have ozone depletion.
1975: A cooling world and drastic decline in food production.
1976: ‘Scientific consensus’ that famine is imminent.
1977: Oil will peak by 1990s (Department of Energy)
1980: Oh my God, acid rain!
1988: Rising sea levels will obliterate nations by 2000.
1988: Maldive Islands will be underwater by 2018 (they are still there).
1989: Nations wiped off the planet by 2000 from global warming (UN).
1996: Oil will be gone in 2020.
2002: Famine if we don’t give up meat, fish, and dairy.
2004: Britain will be Siberia by 2024.
2005: Manhattan will be underwater by 2015.
2008: The Arctic will be ice free by 2018.
2009: Prince Charles says we have 96 months to save the planet.
2009: The UK Prime Minister disagrees, says we have 50 days.
2009: Al Gore moves his prediction of an ice-free Arctic from 2013 to 2019.
2014: We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos (John Kerry, Jay Carney, French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius).
Other ‘experts’:
2019 We have eight or nine years to address climate change (Bernie Sanders) 2021-present: Dr. Anthony Fauci: “The vaccine is safe and effective and will prevent you from getting COVID”. It is neither.
Joe Biden: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
Breaking Down America the Globalist Way
Before it morphed into the very profitable climate change industry, the global warming agenda started to infiltrate public schools via student TV channels in the classroom, video games, movies, Saturday cartoons, and other mass media forms of indoctrination.
Students were frightened by their teachers that the planet was going to burn up in a huge ball of fire or freeze up because their parents’ lifestyle and rate of reproduction was killing the planet.
Rational people cannot logically understand how an extra tax is going to stop the alleged global warming caused by man’s daily existence and how a gas, CO2, that helps plant life to thrive and is added to greenhouses to speed plant growth, is suddenly so harmful.
Trust the science, people are told, even unsound and deceptive science. Real science evolves, it is never set in stone. Science is flawed when based on faulty computer models or the scientist(s) are paid by a lobbying group to arrive at a pre-determined result.
Hysteria in the mainstream media reached a crescendo of Armageddon warnings that the planet is doomed by fossil fuel use, either freezing or warming, depending on which decade the dire warnings were lobbed at frightened and very gullible humans.
In the meantime, the elites forecasting Armageddon were living in their own massive carbon footprint mansions, flying in their private jets, sailing around the world in their yachts, building more extravagant huge villas by the sea, while telling the rest of us to live in tiny dwellings, drive electric cars people could not afford to purchase, commute by train, bike to work, walk everywhere, reduce individual carbon footprint, recycle everything, and stop eating meat.
California’s Democrat government declared a ban on gasoline powered cars and shortly after demanded that electric vehicles not be charged from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. because of the risk of power grid failure followed by rolling blackouts.
In Jackson, Mississippi, 150,000 residents were left without running water, a water infrastructure collapse caused by “decades of deferred maintenance” in a city run by Democrats. If they cannot have clean water, is there hope for underdeveloped countries?
The United Nations introduced its Agenda 21 in 1992, with its 40 chapters, after years of creating many variants of the document, and was voted and signed onto by 178 countries that agreed to follow its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations says that the document was non-binding yet in 30 years since its signing, it has been adopted in every country on the planet at all levels of government - local, state, and federal.
Advertising agencies, promoted by U.N.’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the MSM picked up these goals, talked them up non-stop and soon key words became part of everything society does – commerce, art, production, public education, higher education, science, politics, advertising, health, medicine, drugs, food, religion, transportation, etc. Everything we have been doing for centuries became sustainable or unsustainable overnight. Even clothing became sustainable and morally produced. If those words did not appear in the description of a product or service, then the public was supposed to consider it bad.
Sustainable Development (SD) became the lynchpin of transforming society into the “vision” of the global elites for more than 7 billion people. The global elites knew what was best for them and 17 SD goals had to be achieved by 2030, hence its new name, Agenda 2030.
17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations
People could no longer be “nudged” into compliance like it was suggested in the Agenda 21, they had to be “forced” into Agenda 2030 by government dictates or fear mongering of real and imagined disasters that only wise and able governments could control and mitigate.
What were these 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations? They all sound reasonable on the surface but upon investigation, they cover every facet of human life and activity, all controlled by government, with no possibility of any input from those 7 billion people who will be expected to obey, “own nothing and be happy about it,” and transfer their earned wealth to third world countries:
No poverty
Zero hunger
Good health and well-being
Quality education
Gender equality
Clean water and sanitation
Affordable and clean energy
Decent work and economic growth
Industry, innovation, and infrastructure
Reduced inequalities
Sustainable cities and communities
Responsible consumption and production
Climate action
Life below water
Life on land
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Partnerships for the goals
To end poverty, the powers that be propose a population reduction by many means, such as free abortions on demand or paid for by giant corporations; pandemics like Covid-19 (Bill Gates made the public statement that many more pandemics will come); damage and death following vaccines; eating insects which contain chitin, a substance found in the exoskeleton of bugs, a chemical that our bodies is not prepared for and causes asthma in humans; cancelling people over 65; hinting at cannibalism; destroying our food supply with bizarre and suspect fires at so many food storage facilities or large farms that it is no longer a coincidence; using chemtrails to spread harmful chemicals in the atmosphere which then falls on soil, in water, and are aspirated into lungs; cutting off irrigation and causing severe draught; and cattle killings by the thousands at one time, allegedly due to heat waves.
Population reduction will further be achieved by pushing same sex relationships which cannot reproduce, forcing confused children in schools into gender reassignment, maiming teenagers through surgical procedures, and destroying the traditional family. A strong leftist cancel culture creates a twilight zone where everything bad is good and everything good is evil.
People did not connect the Smart Meters in their homes with Agenda 21
Destroying the food supply will of course end poverty as there would not be as many humans to be poor, forcibly confiscating property from richer countries and distributing it to poorer populations around the world, cutting off irrigation to formerly fertile lands, turning them fallow, and using corn crops for biofuels instead of food, thus destroying a rich and abundant source of food for billions.
Locking down people in the high rises where they live, like the Chinese had done during the pandemic, starved them to death because they were denied access to food.
Quality education is a joke as students are indoctrinated with Common Core standards; reading, writing, and arithmetic are replaced more and more by social activism and Marxism.
Children are dumbed down with manufactured history like the Project 1619, 58 genders, transgenderism and abortions without parental consent, white is bad, men are worse, division, racism, and graphic sex ed promotion.
U.N.’s Agenda 21 was considered a conspiracy theory and people had to whisper about it even though the 40-chapter document was online all this time. When AOC used the word in the Green New Deal, Agenda 21 suddenly became real, it was no longer a tin foil hat theory.
People did not connect the Smart Meters in their homes with Agenda 21. Their power became much more expensive and much more controlled under the guise of wireless convenience in the billing system. Then their homes were suddenly monitored 24/7 and the power was shut down at the most inconvenient times such as high heat or really cold days, all peak usage of electricity.
Do You Really Understand Your Risk of Dying From COVID?
Polls taken in 2020 and 2021 revealed Americans were wildly confused and misinformed about their true risk of dying from COVID
Based on a new preprint analysis by professor John Ioannidis, there’s no reason for anyone to live in fear anymore, regardless of your age, as your risk of dying from COVID is — and always was — minuscule across the board
Before the COVID jabs were rolled out, if you were 19 or younger, your risk of dying of COVID was 0.0003%; only 3 per 1 million infected with COVID at this age ended up dying. Between ages 60 and 69, the infection fatality rate was 0.501%, i.e., 1 out of 200 infected died
Emerging evidence suggests the shots are causing immune deficiency in some people, thereby actually raising their risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the now-milder strains
The real-world risk of dying from COVID-19 based on published data from the Irish census bureau and the central statistics office for 2020 and 2021 is as follows: For people under 70, the death rate was 0.014%; under 50 years of age, it was 0.002%, which equates to a 1 in 50,000 risk, or about the same as dying from fire or smoke inhalation. Under 25 years of age, the mortality rate was 0.00018%, or 1 in 500,000 risk of dying from COVID
As a follow up to Ioannides’ new paper, Ivor Cummins, founder of TheFatEmperor.com, decided to review the real-world risk of dying from COVID-19 based on published data from the Irish census bureau and the central statistics office (CSO) for 2020 and 2021
Under 70 years of age (i.e., ages birth through 69), 600 out of 4.4 million (0.014%) died of COVID. This equates to a 1 in 7,500 risk of dying from COVID, or approximately the same as your risk of death from accidental poisoning
In the 50 to 60 age group, 130 died out of 600,000 (0.022%), which equates to a 1 in 5,000 risk
Under 50 years of age, 70 died out of 3,4 million (0.002%), which equates to a 1 in 50,000 risk, or about the same as dying from fire or smoke inhalation
Under 25 years of age, fewer than five deaths were recorded in a population totaling 1.65 million. Since no number is specified, Cummins settled on three deaths to make his calculation, which gives us a mortality rate of 0.00018%. This equates to a 1 in 500,000 risk of dying from COVID if you’re under 25, or one-fourth the risk of dying from falling down stairs or off a ladder
What is truly the goal of this globalist Agenda 2030 new world order cabal?
People are not connecting 5G towers to Agenda 21 either. They are now seeing 5G towers installed without permission on their private property and they have no idea how to fight back. Radiation toxicity from 5G towers is quite intense and damaging to people’s health. Without 5G towers installed so many feet apart, self-driven cars cannot work, and the elites cannot make money.
When people caught on what U.N. Agenda 21 was and started fighting ICLEI at the local government level and all the private/public regional partnership spawned by United Nation’s non-governmental organizations, the U.N. changed the name to Agenda 2030 with its 17 sustainable development goals, most of which have already been implemented through executive orders at state and federal levels and by local boards of supervisors who were part of ICLEI organizations. International Council for Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was founded in New York City in 1990 but headquartered in Germany. It has now changed its name to Local Governments for Sustainability, and it is active in more than 125 countries. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
Among our military, the police, the government bureaucrats at all levels, the lawyers, the courts, there are corrupt communists who are fighting against our own people.
It was the local governments who brought in U.N. agenda 21 at first at all local levels through ICLEI and then Presidents Bush and Clinton enshrined it through executive orders. We are 50 years late in fighting Agenda 21, it is already here at all levels of government and around the world.
What is truly the goal of this globalist Agenda 2030 new world order cabal? They want total control and to reduce population. They want to control what’s left in every aspect of our lives by causing food shortages, taking land away from agricultural production, destroying suburbia, replacing fossil fuel cars with electric vehicles, controlling the planet with large private-public partnerships of the elites, taking all private property away, including land and homes, and having a remaining population that owns nothing, will rent everything from the government, and will be dependent 100 percent on government telling them if they can have health care, food, travel rights, transportation rights, money in the bank, rights to attend schools, and even control thoughts through implanted chips.
The elite globalists consider humanity disposable. The WEF advisor Yuval Harari a HARD CORE TECHNOGEEK loser who was never good at anything, is a skinny fat bald man who hates superior humans wants to microchip them and believes his AI solutions will reduce them to the weakling he is, while giving him the enhancement he needs to finally win at something other than computer programming and gaming. What a weak man, if he can even be called that.
Yuval has been saying that “the age of humans is coming to an end on planet Earth, and globalists have activated a multi-faceted plan to ‘cleanse’ the planet of all human beings.”
Yuval says he didn’t know he was Gay until he was an adult and that AI will solve that for others who don’t know. Sounds like he was a really confused person if you ask me? I mean, if you don’t know what you are attracted to by puberty then maybe you ain’t paying attention? So AI is supposed to be able to read someone better and tell them what to think, or just TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK so they believe in what THEY want you to believe?
There is not enough grain planted and harvested right now for 7 billion people because governments have interfered on purpose
Life cannot be sustained without food and water. Cutting off the food and water supply spells disaster. Geo-engineering is already causing global droughts and crops failures. Los Angeles and Las Vegas are already dealing with man-made water shortages. Artificial fertilizer shortages further spells disaster for crop growth.
Government has escalated fossil fuel prices, especially Diesel, through its economic policies, causing an artificial shortage of Diesel and unnecessary high prices. The government has also attacked the supply chain that provides agricultural equipment parts by shutting down production during the pandemic.
“Global governments have recently declared war on Nitrogen, the key element in crop fertilizer, and they appear to be poised to start interrogating farmers who apply nitrogen to their crops. Soon, you will hear news of “climate confessions” from farmers who are thrown in prison for engaging in agricultural practices that might produce food.” Canada building INTERROGATION ROOMS with weapons armories to arrest and prosecute people for “climate crimes”
According to a recently posted Indeed.com ad, the Ministry is searching to recruit a battalion of Climate “Pollution” Officers, a unit within the coldly named “Environmental Enforcement Directorate.”
If you emit too much carbon or use too much fertilizer, you may just be on the Climate Communists’ hit list.
The entire facility that was leaked to The Counter Signal is sketched to be over 50,000 square feet, will house hundreds of ECCC staff, and will also be home to weather forecasting staff.
The Impact Assessment Act (IAA), which was quietly passed in the final days of Trudeau’s majority government, grants sweeping power to Ministerial “Enforcement Officers.” But, until now, little has been explained about where and how Climate Police will be deployed.
The IAA empowers agents of the Ministry of Climate Change to enter premises without a warrant to “verify compliance or prevent non-compliance with [the Act].
Trudeau’s Climate Police may enter any project location that affects the environment to take photographs, access computer systems and communication devices, and “direct any person to put any machinery, vehicle or equipment in the place into operation or to cease operating it.” Climate Police may also prohibit access to the location entirely.
It seems to be no coincidence that this Climate Police armoury was placed in the heartland of agricultural production in Canada. This information comes just days after agents dispatched by ECCC were accused of trespassing on private land in Saskatchewan to collect Nitrogen samples, the newest target of Trudeau’s climate change agenda.
According to the landowners who confronted the federal agents trespassing on their land, they were told that the purpose of them being there was to test the water in the farmers’ dugouts to measure nitrate levels.
Trudeau’s government recently announced a policy to reduce the use of fertilizer on Canadian farms by 30%. This policy has been widely criticized by farmers across the country and by provincial governments in the Western provinces, with opponents saying it will cripple the food supply.
Some observers have said that there is reason to suspect that these actions are the first steps in replicating the attacks on farmers that have provoked widespread unrest in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.
While the federal government has not yet confirmed it, there is speculation that the water sampling we now know is underway will be used as baseline measurements to enforce reductions in fertilizer usage going forward.
The Counter Signal has reached out to ECCC for comment.
If vaccines do not kill enough people (aerosolized vaccines that are being developed could), starvation surely will. We do not have enough food in storage to last through 2023. There is not enough grain planted and harvested right now for 7 billion people because governments have interfered on purpose with the functioning of the free market based on supply and demand.
Our woke population is more concerned with deciding which fluid sex they are at the moment, they are not sure if they are men or women, wants government handouts for everything, including living wages, their loans for worthless university degrees paid off by those who did not go to college, while the world is in severe economic, moral, and societal distress.
Once America breaks down completely, the rest of the world is sure to follow.
Metabolic features of the cell danger response☆
The cell danger response (CDR) is the evolutionarily conserved metabolic response that protects cells and hosts from harm. It is triggered by encounters with chemical, physical, or biological threats that exceed the cellular ca- pacity for homeostasis. The resulting metabolic mismatch between available resources and functional capacity produces a cascade of changes in cellular electron flow, oxygen consumption, redox, membrane fluidity, lipid dy- namics, bioenergetics, carbon and sulfur resource allocation, protein folding and aggregation, vitamin availability, metal homeostasis, indole, pterin, 1-carbon and polyamine metabolism, and polymer formation. The first wave of danger signals consists of the release of metabolic intermediates like ATP and ADP, Krebs cycle intermediates, oxygen, and reactive oxygen species (ROS), and is sustained by purinergic signaling. After the danger has been eliminated or neutralized, a choreographed sequence of anti-inflammatory and regenerative pathways is activat- ed to reverse the CDR and to heal. When the CDR persists abnormally, whole body metabolism and the gut microbiome are disturbed, the collective performance of multiple organ systems is impaired, behavior is changed, and chronic disease results. Metabolic memory of past stress encounters is stored in the form of altered mito- chondrial and cellular macromolecule content, resulting in an increase in functional reserve capacity through a process known as mitocellular hormesis. The systemic form of the CDR, and its magnified form, the purinergic life-threat response (PLTR), are under direct control by ancient pathways in the brain that are ultimately coordi- nated by centers in the brainstem. Chemosensory integration of whole body metabolism occurs in the brainstem and is a prerequisite for normal brain, motor, vestibular, sensory, social, and speech development. An under- standing of the CDR permits us to reframe old concepts of pathogenesis for a broad array of chronic, developmen- tal, autoimmune, and degenerative disorders. These disorders include autism spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), asthma, atopy, gluten and many other food and chemical sensi- tivity syndromes, emphysema, Tourette's syndrome, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), traumatic brain injury (TBI), epilepsy, suicidal ideation, organ transplant biology, diabetes, kidney, liver, and heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer and Parkinson dis- ease, and autoimmune disorders like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis.
Disease implications and summary
When the CDR fails to resolve, chronic disease results.
Each of the metabolic features of the CDR illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2AB can be addressed individually with specific treatments, or more globally with a combination of supplements, dietary and activity changes, or with adaptogen therapies (Panossian and Wikman, 2009). However, since the CDR appears to be a functional response that is coor- dinated by purinergic signaling, a new chapter in complex disease ther- apeutics can be imagined in which the pharmacology of purinergic antagonists is expanded, natural products are sought.
There is no new Virus according to Yeadon, former VP of PFizer respiratory division. 2 minutes long
If you experimentally adopt the position that OUR GOVERNMENT IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO HARM US, TO DISMANTLE MODERN SOCIETY & ENSLAVE ALL PEOPLE IN A DIGITALLY CONTROLLED TOTALITARIAN WORLD, it all fits. Nothing is surplus.
Even if your immediate response is that this is absurd, please try it for a day or so.
I ask you further to adopt the experimental position that the media, controlled by just six global corporations, all allied to a single global organization you’ve all heard of, is relentlessly lying to you and has been doing so for over 2.5 years. Same for the internet, controlled by fewer global corporations, also all allied to that same global organization.
Read more:
Solutions Section coming soon…but in the meantime see below to ‘Secret Meeting at the WHO’ and start sending out emails to your local representatives no matter where you reside!
WHO Assembles Superpowers With ‘One Health Plan’
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
In October 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a new initiative called One Health Joint Plan of Action
The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, includes the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)
The World Health Organization already has too much power; this new initiative will only give it more
The One Health Joint Plan of Action combines multiple globalist organizations and synchronizes their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a global superpower
Decentralized health care and pandemic planning makes sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being applied
In October 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a new initiative called One Health Joint Plan of Action. The plan was launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the:1
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)
The World Health Organization already has too much power. This new initiative amounts to taking multiple globalist organizations and synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power to create a One Health plan.
“The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release.2 One can only imagine what this really means, particularly as they highlight “emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics.”3
What Is the One Health Joint Plan of Action?
On paper, WHO states the One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.”4 Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six One Health areas:5
Health systems
Emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics, endemic zoonotic
The environment
Neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases
Food safety risks
Antimicrobial resistance
The plan includes a technical document “informed by evidence, best practices and existing guidance,” which covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels.
“These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions,” a WHO press release reads.6 In other words, the ultimate goal is to create rules to be followed on a global scale, including the following “operational objectives”:7
Providing a framework for collective and coordinated action to mainstream the One Health approach at all levels
Providing upstream policy and legislative advice and technical assistance to help set national targets and priorities
Promoting multinational, multi-sector, multidisciplinary collaboration, learning and exchange of knowledge, solutions and technologies
WOAH director general Dr. Monique Eloit stated, “Using a One Health lens that brings all relevant sectors together is critical to tackle global health threats, like monkeypox, COVID-19 and Ebola.”8 Meanwhile, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus repeated the rhetoric that a “One Health” approach would be necessary to save the world:9
“It’s clear that a One Health approach must be central to our shared work to strengthen the world’s defences against epidemics and pandemics such as COVID-19. That’s why One Health is one of the guiding principles of the new international agreement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, which our Member States are now negotiating.”
Is WHO Trying to Preserve the Status Quo?
Timing-wise, WHO’s One Health Joint Plan of Action announcement may be serving the purpose of covering up the lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, so they can continue to go into caves and other areas, dig up new, or unknown, viruses and bring them back into densely populated areas where high-security biosafety laboratories are typically located.
WHO’s investigation into COVID-19’s origin was a “fake” investigation from the start. China was allowed to hand pick the members of WHO’s investigative team, which included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
The inclusion of Daszak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory, and in February 2021, WHO cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.10
Molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, called out the members of the WHO-instigated investigative team as “participants in disinformation.”11
Only after backlash, including an open letter signed by 26 scientists demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the pandemic’s origins,12 did WHO enter damage control mode, with Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders joining the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”13
Of note, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book “Vax-Unvax,”14 of which I received a preview copy, Ghebreyesus was chosen to be WHO’s director general by Bill Gates — not because of his qualifications, as Tedros has no medical degree and a background that includes accusations of human rights violations, but due to this loyalty to Gates.
Gates, through his billions in donations to WHO, has significant leverage over WHO’s decisions. So who is ultimately controlling WHO’s One Health Joint Plan of Action and its initiatives aimed at further controlling global health and society?
Trust WHO? Watch This to Learn About the Real WHO
Giving WHO and its cronies more global control is a bad idea. Decentralized health care and pandemic planning — moving from the global and federal levels to the state and local levels — makes sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being applied.
If there were any doubt, watch TrustWHO, above, a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck that delves into the corruption behind the preeminent organization that’s being trusted with public health. In it you’ll learn that industry influences, from Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, dictated WHO’s global agenda from the start.
WHO’s 2009 H1N1 pandemic response was heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Many are also unaware that WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” in 1959, making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation. WHO works closely with IAEA and has downplayed health effects caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters.15
WHO’s Strong Allegiance to China
If history is any indication, WHO’s assembly of global superpowers striving to control everything from health to the environment is not going to act in the public’s best interest. During the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO acted to protect its allegiance to China above all else — including public health.
According to a Sunday Times investigation published in August 2021, WHO’s allegiance to China was secured years earlier, when China secured WHO votes to ensure its candidates would become director-general. Further:16
“The WHO leadership prioritized China’s economic interests over halting the spread of the virus when Covid-19 first emerged. China exerted ultimate control over the WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19, appointing its chosen experts and negotiating a backroom deal to water down the mandate.”
Its China ties played a “decisive role” in the course of the pandemic. On January 28, 2020, four weeks after Taiwan had alerted WHO that a mysterious respiratory illness was spreading in China, WHO had not yet taken action and continued to praise China.
Ghebreyesus even praised China for their transparency and said the Chinese president had “shown ‘rare leadership’ and deserved ‘gratitude and respect’ for acting to contain the outbreak at the epicenter,” the Sunday Times reported. “These ‘extraordinary steps’ had prevented further spread of the virus, and this was why, he said, there were only ‘a few cases of human-to-human transmission outside China, which we are monitoring very closely.’”17
Speaking with the Sunday Times, Ebright said it was this close connection that ultimately steered the course of the pandemic:18
“Not only did it have a role; it has had a decisive role. It was the only motivation. There was no scientific or medical or policy justification for the stance that the WHO took in January and February 2020. That was entirely premised on maintaining satisfactory ties to the Chinese government.
So at every step of the way, the WHO promoted the position that was sought by the Chinese government ... the WHO actively resisted and obstructed efforts by other nations to implement effective border controls that could have limited the spread or even contained the spread of the outbreak.
It is impossible for me to believe that the officials in Geneva, who were making those statements, believed those statements accorded with the facts that were available to them at the time the statements were made. It’s hard not to see that the direct origin of that is the support of the Chinese government for Tedros’s election as director-general ...
This was a remarkably high return on [China’s] investment with the relatively small sums that were invested in supporting his election. It paid off on a grand scale for the Chinese government.”
WHO Goes All in on Global Superpower Plan
It’s already clear that WHO’s usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be reevaluated. Now, it stands to become even more powerful. Rather than learning anything from the course of the pandemic response, it seems they’re willing to risk it all and continue following what got us into this mess in the first place. Only now, they’ll be doing so with additional collaborative powers.
The One Health Joint Plan of Action’s continued focus on “zoonotic epidemics,” when evidence strongly suggests SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab,19 is revealing. So, too, are its claims that only One Health can save us from “ecosystem degradation, food system failures, infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance.”20
The disturbing part is One Health sounds like a fairy tale that will lead to a utopian society. In reality, the “health” it’s spreading isn’t health like you’re thinking, but rather health in the form of whatever product, technology or globalist agenda they’re pushing. By joining forces, they become that much harder to overcome — and they’re already moving ahead on financing and plans for “implementation.”
According to WHO, “Efforts by just one sector or specialty cannot prevent or eliminate infectious disease and other complex threats to One Health ... Building on existing structures and agreements, mechanisms for coordinated financing are under development to support the plan’s implementation.”21
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21 WHO October 17, 2022
14 Amazon
Secret Meetings at the WHO
The International Health Regulations Review Committee is holding secret meetings this week to discuss the proposed amendments to the IHR that have been submitted by 14 member nations.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS BELOW…
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4gWQh38IrN9d/
Yes, the proposed "Pandemic Treaty" is of serious concern, but it also (again) appears to be acting like a sophisticated decoy.
The WHO is actively working to adopt amendments to the International Health Regulations.
The following 14 nations have secretly submitted proposals for amendments to the IHR. Four of the nations submitted proposals on behalf of multiple other nations.
Armenia
Bangladesh
Brazil
Czech Republic on behalf of the Member States of the European Union
Eswatini on behalf of the WHO African Region Member States
India
Indonesia
Japan
Namibia
New Zealand
Russian Federation on behalf of the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union
Switzerland
United States of America
Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR.
THESE PROPOSALS ARE CURRENTLY BEING KEPT SECRET
These documents (proposed amendments to the IHR) are currently NOT publicly available. (If you uncover these documents, please share them with me A.S.A.P.) The proposals were to have been submitted by September 30, 2022. Then they were to have been shared with all 194 member nations A.S.A.P.
It appears that NO public comment is planned.
The newly formed International Health Regulations Review Committee is meeting “privately” this week to discuss proposed amendments to the IHR.
YOU and I were not invited.
The WHO has recently created a VERY CONTROVERSIAL "IHR Review Committee" to PRIVATELY deal with these potentially disparate submissions. It is feared that this is an attempt to hijack the negotiation process. By definition, the Review Committee meetings are “private.”
For those who have eyes to see, and are able to read between the lines, I believe that the recent actions taken by the WHO (and documented below) are highly inappropriate and potentially incendiary.
REGULATIONS FOR EXPERT ADVISORY PANELS AND COMMITTEES
Rule 1
The meetings of expert committees shall normally be of a private character. They cannot become public except by the express decision of the committee with the full agreement of the Director-General.
4.6 In the exercise of their functions, the members of expert advisory panels and committees shall act as international experts serving the Organization exclusively; in that capacity they may not request or receive instructions from any government or authority external to the Organization.
4.12 For each meeting an expert committee shall draw up a report setting forth its findings, observations and recommendations. This report shall be completed and approved by the expert committee before the end of its meeting.
4.13 The Director-General may direct to the attention of the chairman of an expert committee any statement of opinion in its report that might be considered prejudicial to the best interests of the Organization or of any Member State. The chairman of the committee may, at his discretion, delete such statement from the report, with or without communicating with members of the expert committee.
October 24-28, 2022: (IHRRC)
Face-to-face meeting (5 days, Geneva, Switzerland), with, a one day meeting, on 26 October 2022, with Member States, United Nations and its specialized agencies and other relevant intergovernmental organizations or nongovernmental organizations in official relations with WHO, in accordance with Article 51.2 of the IHR, which will also include presentations of rationale for amendments proposed by States Parties, and, if needed, additional discussions of the IHR Amendments RC with each State Party that has proposed amendments;
CLICK HERE to learn how YOU can help uncover these secret proposals
EVIDENCE:
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html
http://ScrewTheWHO.com
http://StopTheWHO.com
http://LeaveTheWHO.com
http://ThePeoplesAmendments.com
WE NEED TO EXPOSE THESE SECRET MEETINGS NOW!
You may have already heard about the World Health Organization’s proposed “Pandemic Treaty.” Please be aware that, while the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” is a clear and present danger to both fundamental individual freedoms as well as the sovereignty of nations around the world, the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” also functions as a decoy that is designed to distract your attention away from the quietly proposed amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR).
I have written extensively over the past year (see the list of articles below) about the attempts of the Biden administration to quietly get the World Health Assembly to adopt amendments to the IHR. We, the people of the world, won that battle!
IMHO, these secretly proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are more of an immediate threat to our freedoms and sovereignty than the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.”
The International Health Regulations are already existing international law. While they really are NOT very powerful, the IHR is commonly accepted as legally binding international law.
The World Health Organization sees the opportunity to amend these existing laws in order to seize more authority and power.
It is easier to amend existing law than to create, adopt and approve a new treaty.
For the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” to be adopted, the World Health Assembly would need to achieve a 2/3 majority (130 out of 194 member nations). Then, for the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” to come into full effect, each of the 194 member nations would ALSO need to adopt it according to their nation’s rules (2/3 vote of the Senate, for instance) and enact legislation to bring each nation’s laws into agreement with the “treaty.” If the Senate, or the Parliament of any given nation failed to agree to approve or ratify the treaty, then the nation would not be bound by any such treaty.
However, in order to adopt amendments to the IHR, the World Health Assembly only needs to achieve a simp8 out of 194 member nations). Additionally, the real danger of the proposed amendments to the IHR is far more immediate than the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” because, once amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, each member nation is ASSUMED to have already agreed to the amendments unless they muster the political will to reject the amendments as detailed in Article 61 of the IHR. The member nations do NOT need to go through the process of formally adopting any amendments.
SIMPLY STATED: The path to approving amendments to the existing International Health Regulations is much easier than the path to a completely new “Pandemic Treaty.”
In the case of a proposed “Pandemic Treaty,” a government could easily delay and simply ignore the treaty, but in the case of amendments that had been adopted by the World Health Assembly, each nation would be ASSUMED to accept them unless the people rise up and force their government to pro-actively reject the amendments.
It would be a huge mistake to wait until the amendments have been adopted and it is too late to stop them.
IMHO, it will be much easier, and far more prudent, to rise up now and take control of this process before it has a chance to get started, gain momentum and get out of control.
THE IHR AMENDMENT TIMELINE:
The combined timeline of the Working Group for Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) and the International Health Regulations Amendments Review Committee (IHRRC) is below:
September 30, 2022: (IHRRC)
Deadline for the submission of proposed amendments to the IHR from member nations.
October 1, 2022: (IHRRC)
Deadline for the Director General to convene the IHR Amendments Review Committee.
October 6, 2022: (IHRRC)
Closed virtual meeting to elect Chair, Vice-Chair, and Rapporteur of the IHR Amendments RC, and define the Methods of Work;
October 24-28, 2022: (IHRRC)
Face-to-face meeting (5 days, Geneva, Switzerland), with, a one day meeting, on 26 October 2022, with Member States, United Nations and its specialized agencies and other relevant intergovernmental organizations or nongovernmental organizations in official relations with WHO, in accordance with Article 51.2 of the IHR, which will also include presentations of rationale for amendments proposed by States Parties, and, if needed, additional discussions of the IHR Amendments RC with each State Party that has proposed amendments;
November 14-15: (WGIHR)
First meeting of the WGIHR
November 16-17, 2022: (IHRRC)
Closed virtual working meeting;
November 28 - December 2, 2022: (IHRRC)
Face-to-face meeting (5 days, Geneva, Switzerland) for report drafting purposes, with, at least, one day meeting with Member States, United Nations and its specialized agencies and other relevant intergovernmental organizations or nongovernmental organizations in official relations with WHO, the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), and the WGIHR;
December 5-7, 2022 (INB)
Third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body scheduled to reveal the “Conceptual Zero Draft.”
December 15-16, 2022: (IHRRC)
Closed virtual working meeting;
January 9-13, 2023: (IHRRC)
Face-to-face meeting (5 days, Geneva, Switzerland) for finalization of the report, with, at least, one day meeting with Member States, United Nations and its specialized agencies and other relevant intergovernmental organizations or nongovernmental organizations in official relations with WHO, the Bureau of the INB, and the WGIHR.
January 15, 2023
WGIHR is scheduled to submit amendments to the Director General of the WHO.
May 2023
The WHO consistently claims that their goal is to consider these amendments at the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024, but the amendments COULD be voted on by the 76th World Health Assembly in May 2023.
The sole [official] purpose of the International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) is to provide technical recommendations to the Director-General on amendments proposed by State Parties to the IHR, as decided by the Health Assembly in Decision WHA75(9).
BUT WHAT ARE THEY REALLY DOING, AND WHY ARE THEY DOING IT IN SECRET?
SEND AN EMAIL TO EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:
The people listed below are members of the delegation that represented the United States at the 75th World Health Assembly in May 2022.
Colin.Mciff@hhs.gov
Esmeralda.Orozco@hhs.gov
Feride.Rothschild@hhs.gov
Gabrielle.Lamourelle@hhs.gov
HHS.Counselors@hhs.gov
Krycia.Cowling@hhs.gov
Leandra.Olson@hhs.gov
Mara.Burr@hhs.gov
Maya.Levine@hhs.gov
Natalie.Lahood@hhs.gov
Rachel.Levine@hhs.gov
Sarah.Emami@hhs.gov
Stephanie.Psaki@hhs.gov
Susan.Kim@hhs.gov
OGAMultilateral@hhs.gov
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
EMAIL:
Since you were a member of the United States delegation to the 75th World Health Assembly in May 2022, I am reaching out to you in order to obtain information that involves the responsibilities of your position.
As you must certainly be aware, the following 14 nations have submitted proposals for amendments to the IHR. Four of the nations submitted proposals on behalf of multiple other nations.
Armenia
Bangladesh
Brazil
Czech Republic on behalf of the Member States of the European Union
Eswatini on behalf of the WHO African Region Member States
India
Indonesia
Japan
Namibia
New Zealand
Russian Federation on behalf of the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union
Switzerland
United States of America
Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR.
I know that the Director-General of the WHO was obligated to share these proposals with the delegations of the 194 member nations as soon as possible.
These documents will potentially have a serious and far-reaching impact upon the lives of everyone on earth.
Keeping these documents secret is absolutely unacceptable
The Department of Health and Human Services must make these documents readily available to the general public IMMEDIATELY.
I hereby request that you share these documents with me either directly via email, or by providing a link to where the documents are posted for the public to download on the website maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services or on a website maintained by the World Health Organization.
Your prompt response to this request will be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
James Roguski
310-619-3055
SOURCES:
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/international-health-regulations/terms-of-reference_ihr-amendments-rc_final_rev.pdf
https://www.who.int/teams/ihr/ihr-review-committees/review-committee-regarding-amendments-to-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)
SEND AN EMAIL TO THE IHRRC:
IHRRC@who.int
AbdelfattahM@who.int
AginamO@who.int
AlnsourM@who.int
AmothP@who.int
BurciG@who.int
CamachoJ@who.int
ForsythA@who.int
GostinL@who.int
HabibiR@who.int
HaringhuizenG@who.int
JokhdarH@who.int
LiuY@who.int
SafdarR@who.int
SahukhanA@who.int
SamarasekeraD@who.int
SmolenskiyV@who.int
SreedharanS@who.int
WenhamC@who.int
I suggest that you send every member of the IHRRC an email on a daily basis, requesting copies of the documents (proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations) that were submitted by the 14 nations until We the People receive access to this hidden information.
Do NOT expect a reply, but if you do receive a reply, please share it in the comments below.
FIRST REQUEST:
SECOND REQUEST:
THIRD REQUEST:
THE 18 MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE:
These “technocratic rulers” have been put in the position of deciding the fate of the future of the world and everyone in it.
Chair
Kenya
Acting Director General for Health, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya
Biography
Dr. Patrick Amoth is the Director General for Health in the Ministry of Health, Kenya as well as the immediate former Chair of the World Health Organization’s Executive Board.
A consultant obstetrician and gynecologist of immense repute, Dr. Amoth previously headed the Directorate of Public Health at the Ministry, where he spearheaded strategy development for effective delivery of health services in all the 47 counties in Kenya and was centrally involved in the inception and alignment of Universal Health Coverage for the country. Dr. Amoth headed the technical management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, serving as a member of the Multi-Agency National Emergency and Response Committee on Coronavirus pandemic in Kenya as well as co-chairing the Ministry of Health COVID-19 Management Taskforce. He currently chairs the Kenya’s National Taskforce on the response to Ebola Virus Disease (EVD).
Dr. Amoth’s has had expansive experience in Kenya’s Civil Service having risen from a Medical Officer Intern at a Provincial Hospital before becoming the Medical Superintendent in the Country Referral Hospital. Dr. Amoth is credited with having had excellent managerial skills as well as robust and successful resource mobilization skills that he put in use while working as the District Medical Officer for Health, initiating various programs, and revolutionizing infrastructural improvement of most hospitals that were under his area of management.
Dr. Patrick Amoth is a graduate of the University of Nairobi’s Medical School and has a Masters in Obstetrics and Gynecology from the same university. He also holds a Diploma in Health Systems Management form Galilee College in Israel.
Vice-Chair
H.E. Ambassador Juan José Gómez Camacho
Mexico
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC, United States of America
Biography
Ambassador Juan José Gómez-Camacho is a senior fellow and member of the teaching faculty of the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Foreign Policy Institute, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, United States of America SAIS’ Foreign Policy Institute, as well as a member of the teaching faculty of SAIS.
He holds a Bachelor Degree in Law from Iberoamericana University in Mexico City and an LLM from Georgetown University in Washington D.C. He joined the Mexican Foreign Service in 1988.
During his 30 years of diplomatic career, he has gained vast experience and has played a key role in addressing emerging global challenges, both political and economic. Most significantly, he led negotiations on what today is known as the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework, a global deal between countries, the pharmaceutical industry, laboratories and civil society to ensure greater coordination and coherence in responding to future global pandemics; and, along with the Swiss Ambassador to the UN, he led the drafting and negotiations of the UN Global Compact for a safe, orderly and regular migration adopted in December 2018. He launched discussions between Member States and introduced into the UN Agenda the impact of Artificial Intelligence and Exponential Technological Change.
Ambassador Gómez-Camacho is one of the most senior and experienced Mexican diplomats. He served as Ambassador of Mexico to Canada starting in 2019; Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations from February 2016 to February 2019; Ambassador to the European Union as well as to the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (2013-2016); Permanent Representative of Mexico to the Office of the UN and other International Organizations based in Geneva, Switzerland (2009-2013), as well as Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore and to the Union of Myanmar and the Sultanate of Brunei Darussalam (2006-2009).
Additionally, Ambassador Gómez-Camacho has written and co-authored a considerable number of articles on a range of issues related to Foreign Policy and International Law.
Rapporteur
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Associate Professor of Global Health Policy, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
Biography
Dr Clare Wenham is Associate Professor of Global Health Policy. She is the Director of the MSc in Global Health Policy and sits on the steering committee of the LSE Global Health Initiative. Clare is an interdisciplinary health policy/international relations academic, with research that also contributes to public policy and public health through an empirical focus on global health security. Her research explores the preparation for and response to epidemics by state and non-state actors, the political challenges of this multi-stakeholder landscape and the effects of epidemic mitigation policies.
Clare’s work focuses on the politics of infectious disease preparedness and response. Her research includes critical analysis of financing mechanisms, increasing convergence of global health security with universal health coverage, novel infectious disease surveillance methods, the role of the WHO, contextualising the structure of global health governance during Ebola as a point of failure, and the risk of “over-securitizing” health. She has also explored theoretically how international relations can contribute to resolving issues caused by COVID-19 and how feminist theory can contribute to disease governance. This has led to policy engagement with the WHO, UK Cabinet Office, for the European Union. At the national level, Clare has used empirical case studies to understand how different governments approach infectious disease control, with notable studies focused on Panama, Cuba, Thailand and the UK.
A second area of her research is the gendered impact of epidemic policy, where she considers how the gender neutrality of global health security policy differentially affects women. She has used empirical case studies from Zika, with a particular concentration on access to sexual and reproductive health services; and from COVID-19, highlighting the impact on women’s economic participation, the role of gender advisors and the failures within the World Health Organisation (WHO). Clare’s work on this has contributed to policy development at the European Parliament, WHO and UN Women, and is often cited by the UK government and media outlets. She is currently Co-PI on the Gender & COVID Project.
Prior to joining LSE, Clare worked at the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and in policy at the Faculty of Public Health (UK). She has a PhD in International Relations from Aberystwyth University.
Member
Mohammad Abdelfattah
Egypt
Undersecretary for Preventive Affairs, Preventive Medicine Sector, Ministry of Health and Population, Cairo, Egypt
Member
Nigeria
Principal Visiting Fellow, United Nations University, International Institute for Global Health, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Biography
Obijiofor Aginam, PhD has held senior positions at the United Nations University serving as Senior Research Fellow & Chief of International Cooperation and Development at the United Nations University-Institute for Sustainability and Peace, United Nations University headquarters in Tokyo (2007-2013), and Deputy-Director and Head of Governance for Global Health at the United Nations University-International Institute for Global Health (UNU-IIGH) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (2013-2019). He is currently a Principal Visiting Fellow at UNU-IIGH, Adjunct Research Professor of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, and most recently a Visiting Research Fellow at UN University-Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS), Bruges, Belgium. He was a tenured Associate Professor of Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University, (2001-2007), and Global Health Leadership Officer at the World Health Organization headquarters, Geneva (1999-2001) where he worked on the review of the International Health Regulations (IHR) in the Communicable Diseases Cluster of WHO. He has been a fellow of the Social Science Research Council of New York on “Global Health Security and Cooperation”. Dr. Aginam has served as legal consultant of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) on “governance of anti-microbial resistance”, and trade and food safety involving field missions to Bangladesh and Laos. He was a member of the United Nations Inter-Agency Taskforce on Non-communicable Diseases (2014-2019), and a visiting professor at the University for Peace, Costa Rica, and universities in Italy, South Africa, and Japan. He serves on the editorial board of Global Health Governance: The Scholarly Journal for the New Health Security Paradigm. Dr Aginam holds a PhD in Law from University of British Columbia. He is the author of several publications on global health security, governance, diplomacy, and regulatory issues in pandemic preparedness and response including Global Health Governance: International Law and Public Health in a Divided World.
Member
Jordan
Executive Director, Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network (EMPHNET), Amman, Jordan
Biography
Executive Director
Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network (GHD|EMPHNET)
executive.director@emphnet.net
Dr. Mohannad Al-Nsour is a medical doctor and an internationally recognized expert in field epidemiology, operational research, and public health systems. Dr. Al-Nsour assumed several positions such as a notable researcher, advisor, and director during his career path. He also served as a consultant on several assignments with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and the American University of Beirut. Dr. Al-Nsour has been leading the Eastern Mediterranean Public Health Network (EMPHNET) since 2009, by providing strategic assistance and operational solutions, and guiding the enrichment of Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) and public health initiatives in the region. Under Dr. AlNsour’s leadership, GHD|EMPHNET emerged as a prominent collaborative platform to serve the region and support national efforts to promote public health policies, applied epidemiology, surveillance, International Health Regulations (IHR), resource mobilization, and public health program development among others. Dr. Al-Nsour is a lecturer and speaker at regional and international levels covering public health topics such as leadership, field epidemiology, delivering evidence-based recommendations, creating new opportunities, and being a catalyst for change. Some of his areas of expertise are infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases (NCD), and global health. Dr. Al-Nsour serves on several regional and global initiatives, association and networks as he is a member of the Steering Committee for the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET), International Epidemiological Association, and more. He is currently leading the establishment of the Public Health Forum and the NCD Alliance in Jordan.
Member
Italy, Switzerland
Adjunct Professor of international law and Academic Adviser in the Global Health Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
Biography
Gian Luca Burci has been Adjunct Professor of international law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva since 2012. He is also the Director of the joint LLM on Global Health Law and Governance between the Graduate Institute and Georgetown Law School, as well as Academic Adviser in the Global Health Centre of the Graduate Institute. His courses include the law and practice of international organizations, the role of WHO in global health law and governance, the role of an international legal counsel and global health law.
Before this appointment, Prof. Burci served in the Legal Office of the World Health Organization from 1998 to 2016 and was its Legal Counsel from 2005 to 2016. Professor Burci previously worked in the International Atomic Energy Agency (1998-1999) and the Office of the UN Legal Counsel (1989-1998). During his service in WHO, he was involved in the negotiation and implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the revision and implementation of the International Health Regulations, WHO’s response to the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic and the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak.
Prof. Burci holds a post graduate degree in law from the University of Genova, Italy. His areas of expertise are public international law, the law of international organizations as well as global health governance and law. Prof. Burci is the co-author of the leading English book on WHO, editor of the first research collection on global health law, co-editor of the first research handbook on global health law and author of numerous articles and book chapters on a variety of topics including the law of international organizations, UN peace and security functions, international immunities, as well as global health law.
Member
Trinidad and Tobago
County Medical Officer of Health, Ministry of Health, Trinidad and Tobago
Biography
Dr. Adelle-Lisa Chang On has supported the implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) in her role as County Medical Officer of Health, Ministry of Health, Trinidad and Tobago. She received her medical training from the University of the West Indies (2004) and her MPH from Harvard University (2010). She is also a graduate of the WHO IHR Implementation Course (2013). Dr. Chang On has served on WHO’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Group on Geographical Yellow Fever Risk Mapping (GRYF) and the COVID-19 IHR Emergency Committee.
Member
New Zealand
Manager, Public Health Strategy, Ministry of Health, New Zealand
Biography
Manager, Public Health Capability, Ministry of Health, New Zealand.
Mr Forsyth has more than 25 years’ experience in various positions with the New Zealand Ministry of Health. His work focuses on the development and implementation of public health law. In 2016/17 this included revising New Zealand's infectious disease legislation to include human rights principles.
He has also been involved in New Zealand’s government level responses to a range of acute public health threats, including SARS in 2003, pandemic influenza in 2009, the Canterbury earthquake in 2011 and he has been involved involvement with New Zealand’s readiness activities for Ebola virus disease during 2014.
During 2018 Mr Forsyth contributed to the Health-led, whole of government, engagement with WHO's Joint External Evaluation team. He is currently leading the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through the Parliamentary process.
He participated in the inter-governmental negotiations on the International Health Regulations during 2004 and 2005. Since then he has served as an adviser and consultant to WHO in various capacities relating to the implementation of the IHR 2005 and the Asia Pacific Strategy for Emerging Diseases and Public Health Emergencies, principally in the Western Pacific region.
In 2010 Mr Forsyth served on the Review Committee established to review the performance of the IHR 2005 and the global response to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) and in 2014 he served on the Review Committee on Second Extensions for Establishing National Public Health Capacities and on IHR Implementation.
In 2056/16 he was a member of the Review Committee on the Role of the International Health Regulations (2005) in the Ebola Outbreak and Response.
Member
United States of America
Professor, Founding O’Neill Chair in Global Health Law, and Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, Washington DC, Unites States of America
Biography
Lawrence O. Gostin is University Professor, Georgetown University’s highest academic rank, and Founding O’Neill Chair in Global Health Law. He directs the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. He served on high-level advisory committees for the World Health Organization, including WHO reform, smallpox, pandemic influenza, and genomic sequencing data. He is working with WHO on the global COVID-19 response, including impacts on the health workforce and international migration. He served on the WHO/Global Fund Blue Ribbon Expert Panel on Equitable Access in Global Health and co-chaired the Lancet Commission on Global Health Law.
Gostin served on two global commissions on the West Africa Ebola epidemic, and was senior advisor to the UN Secretary General. Prof. Gostin also served on the drafting team for the G-7 Summit in Tokyo on global health security. He currently serves as a member of the Independent Panel for a Global Public Health Convention. He also serves on the Panel for the Global Health Security Index.
Prof. Gostin is Global Health editor, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). He’s a Member of the National Academy of Medicine and sits on its Global Health Board. He also serves on the National Academies’ Committee on the Analysis to Enhance the Effectiveness of the Federal Quarantine Station Network based on Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. President Obama appointed Prof. Gostin to the President’s National Cancer Advisory Board.
Prof. Gostin holds the National Academy of Medicine’s Adam Yarmolinsky Medal for distinguished service of science and health. The American Public Health Law Association awarded Gostin its Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award.
Prof. Gostin’s latest book, Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard Press, 2021) won the prestigious Association of American Publishers PROSE Award for the best book on Professional and Scholarly Excellence in Biological and Life Sciences.
In the United Kingdom, the National Consumer Council bestowed Prof Gostin with the Rosemary Delbridge Memorial Award for the person “who has most influenced Parliament and government to act for the welfare of society.” He is elected to the Royal Society of Public Health and to the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal College of Physicians.
Member
Canada
Research Fellow, Global Strategy Lab, York University, Toronto, Canada; Fellow, Canadian International Council; Lecturer, Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada
Biography
Roojin Habibi is a research fellow of the Global Strategy Lab at York University, a fellow of the Canadian International Council, and a lecturer at Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Toronto Metropolitan University. Her research examines how laws, norms and international relations shape global health and the realization of health-related human rights. She is the recipient of several research awards and distinctions, including the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation Scholarship, and the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Doctoral Award.
Having worked across government, nongovernmental and international organizations, Roojin takes a multisectoral and collaborative approach to international law scholarship. Her interdisciplinary research is published across journals of public health and medicine, scholarly legal and social science journals, commissioned reports, foundational textbooks and casebooks of law, as well as public-facing news and media outlets. In 2019, she was lead author and rapporteur of a consensus-based interpretation of Article 43 of the 2005 International Health Regulations (‘the Stellenbosch Consensus Statement on Legal National Responses to Public Health Risks’). This consensus statement, developed in collaboration with fifteen eminent global health law scholars from around the world, provided a first-of-its-kind consolidation of the legal parameters governing the application of cross-border health measures in response to public health risks. Following this, the ‘Stellenbosch Consensus’ served as the catalyst for a permanent gobal health law research collaborative known as the “Global Health Law Consortium,” which Roojin has centrally helped build since 2020.
Roojin is a member of Canada’s Ontario Bar, and holds a law degree (J.D.) from the University of Ottawa's French Common Law program, a specialization in transnational law from the University of Geneva, and a Master’s of Science in Global Health from McMaster University. She regularly teaches and advises students in graduate programs ranging from law and the social sciences to public health and medicine, and is fluent in English, French and Farsi.
Member
George Haringhuizen
The Netherlands
Chief Legal Officer, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Member
Saudi Arabia
Deputy Minister for Public Health, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Biography
MBBCh, MSc, and PhD in public health and infectious disease prevention and control Deputy minister for public health Chairs the Hajj and Umrah Preparatory Committee Public Health Authority Board member Saudi Commission for Healthcare Specialty Board member In charge of the Primary Health care services, Preventive Health Programs, the International Center for Mass Gathering, IHR, Hajj and Umrah and the Healthy city program. Chairs the Public Health Emergency Operating Center Chairs the National Committee for Infectious Diseases Hani has been involved in many publications and conferences. He represents the MOH in several Governmental boards and International events.
Member
China
Assistant Professor, Law School, and Director of the Center for Global Law and Strategy, Law and Technology Institute, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Biography
Dr. LIU Yang is an expert in international health law. He teaches international health law, international law and International Organizations at Renmin University of China, where he also directs the Center for Global Law and Strategy. Prior to entering academia, he worked at the International Court of Justice as a Judicial Fellow. Dr. Liu holds a doctorate in Law from the University of California, Los Angeles, a master degree from Harvard Law School, and receives his bachelor and master degrees in law from Tsinghua University in Beijing.
Member
Pakistan
Chief, Field Epidemiology & Disease Surveillance Division, National Institute of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan
Biography
Dr. Rana Muhammad Safdar has an illustrious career in healthcare service delivery spanned over a period of 3 decades. Having a medical degree and postgraduate qualifications in areas of Public Health from Armed Forces Postgraduate Medical Institute (AFPGMI) Rawalpindi, Dr Safdar earned fellowships in areas of Field Epidemiology and afterwards Emerging Infectious Disease Epidemiology from University of Iowa, USA and Health Metrics & Evaluation from University of Washington, USA as well as the Faculty of Public Health (FFPH) UK.
Dr. Safdar’s working with Pakistan’s health system includes a postgraduate professional experience of a quarter century wherein he remained actively engaged in disease prevention and control interventions at different levels. During the time, he made extensive contributions to the national health system starting as a Medical Officer in Basic Health Unit to the top national assignment of the Director General Health - Pakistan. Besides serving all national priority disease control programmes in Pakistan including EPI, Polio Eradication, Prevention & Control of Viral Hepatitis as well as HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria, he also served in International Organizations such as UNAIDS & US CDC, on deputation basis, after selection through competitive processes. His principal assignment at present is Chief of Field Epidemiology & Disease Surveillance Division at NIH Pakistan. He also served as the National Focal Point for IHR and authored concept and national plan for Integrated Disease Surveillance & Response System for Pakistan.
After massive Polio outbreaks of 2014, Dr. Safdar was tasked to serve as the National Coordinator of Pakistan’s Polio eradication initiative. He transformed the program immediately by conceptualizing and operationalizing a national Network of Emergency Operations Centres (EOCs) that provided a joint operations, security and communication platform to all Government stakeholders as well as international partners, with completed clarity of command and control by the Government. Security Forces were formally engaged in support of the program operations and country made remarkable achievements during 2015-2018 bringing cases to single digit through the successful implementation of ‘One Team’ approach that was globally acknowledged as a role model for public health service delivery.
Following political change and resurgence of Polio in 2019, he was brought back to lead the country out of crisis. This time he was simultaneously assigned the leadership of both the EPI and PEI programs. This unified leadership helped Pakistan in synergized planning and alignment of efforts and resources. Accordingly, despite challenges posed by COVID pandemic, huge gains were made in strengthening of immunization system across Pakistan, high quality SIAs as well as Enhanced Outreach for essential immunization. This helped in building a strong immunity wall against Polio and other vaccine preventable diseases such as Measles, Diphtheria, Tetanus etc. Efforts led to a smooth high transmission season of 2021 bringing country closest to virus interruption. Dr. Safdar was subsequently moved as DG Health in March 2021.
As COVID-19 struck Pakistan, as the Coordinator of the National Emergency Operations Centre and National Manager, Expanded Programme on Immunization, Dr. Safdar also led the process of development and implementation of national COVID-19 surveillance and response system encompassing issuance of daily situation reports and conducting risk assessments that formed basis of all critical decision making at the National Command Operations Center, National Immunization Management System, National Health Helpline 1122 etc. He also led negotiations with GAVI enabling Pakistan to benefit from donation of almost 110 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine from COVAX.
Member
Fiji
Head of Health Protection, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Suva, Fiji
Biography
Head of Health Protection
Fiji Ministry of Health and Medical Services
Dr Aalisha Sahukhan is the founding Head of Health Protection at the Fiji Ministry of Health and Medical Services. In this role, she leads the Fiji Centre for Disease Control (Fiji CDC), the Environmental Health Unit, and the Health Emergencies and Climate Change department. Health Protection is also Fiji’s National Focal Point (NFP) for the International Health Regulations (2005) and Dr Sahukhan serves as lead representative of the Fiji NFP.
Dr Sahukhan is a medical doctor specialising in public health and infectious disease epidemiology. She has chaired national health task-forces and led responses to multiple epidemics, including meningococcal C, measles, and leptospirosis. Dr Sahukhan is a health leadership team member, a national spokesperson, and technical lead for Fiji’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She also represents Fiji on the IHR Learning Working Group, the Member States Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies (WGPR), and the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Dr Sahukhan is a member of the International Health Regulations (2005) Roster of Experts, as an expert in public health, including infectious disease epidemiology and emergency management. In 2022, Dr Sahukhan was appointed to the IHR Review Committee regarding amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005).
Dr Sahukhan is a medical graduate of the Fiji School of Medicine, and a Fulbright Scholar, graduating with a Master of Public Health and a Graduate Certificate in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies from the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University.
Member
Sri Lanka
Consultant Community Physician, Quarantine Unit, Ministry of Health, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Biography
(MBBS, MSc in Community Medicine, MD in Community Medicine)
Dr. S. Dilhani Samarasekera, is a Consultant Community Physician in Sri Lanka. She obtained her MBBS from Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo in 1998, MSc in Community Medicine from Post Graduate Institute, University of Colombo in 2003 and MD in Community Medicine from Post Graduate Institute, University of Colombo in 2009. Her MD theses was on “A Community based comparative study on disability, psychosocial aspects, healthcare seeking behaviour and morbidity control of people with chronic filarial lymphoedema in Colombo district”. She has undergone her post-doctoral training at Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, United Kingdom
She has worked in many public health units of Ministry of Health including Anti Filariasis Campaign, Rabies Control Programme, National STD/AIDS Control Programme and Quarantine Unit. After becoming the Board-Certified Specialist in Community Medicine in 2010, she was the first Consultant Community Physician posted to Anti Filariasis Campaign (AFC) of Ministry of Health in 2011. She has involved in many activities including Mass Drug Administration Program, Transmission Assessment Surveys and research during her stay at Anti Filariasis Campaign. She is one of the chief editors of National Documentation on Certification of Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis in Sri Lanka which was submitted to WHO to obtain the Certification on Filariasis Elimination as a Public Health Problem in 2016.
Since 2017, she is working at Quarantine Unit of Ministry of Health which involves in maintaining health security of the country with other stakeholders including animal, human, aviation, marine, agriculture, radiation, chemical, security forces and environmental sectors. Quarantine unit is one of the National Focal Points of International Health Regulations-2005 in Sri Lanka. The airport health offices, port health offices, Assistant port health office (which gives yellow fever, meningococcal and oral polio vaccines to travellers) and immigration health unit (which coordinates with inbound health assessment unit to screen resident visa applicants for Tuberculosis, Malaria, HIV and Filariasis) in Sri Lanka are under this unit. As the Consultant Community Physician of the Quarantine Unit, she was involved in providing technical guidance to stakeholders and was a member of the local panel involved in Joint External Evaluation in 2017. She was involved in preparation of National Action Plan of Health Security (NAPHS) 2019-2023 in Sri Lanka. Further, she is involved in conducting the activities related to Coordination and Points of Entry capacities in NAPHS, coordinated and involved in conducting WHO Documenting the progress following JEE and implementation of NAPHS in Sri Lanka in 2019, coordinating and conducting the annual workshop to fill the State Party Annual Reporting Tool and reporting to WHO. With the other stakeholders, she was involved in conducting Simulation Exercises and After-Action Reviews.
During the COVID pandemic she was actively involved in minimizing the risk of transmission among workers and travelers at points of entry. She is in many technical committees and was involved in preparation of guidelines, standard operating procedures issued for travelers and the community by Ministry of Health and convenor of the committee to formulate health criteria on tourism.
Member
Russian Federation
Deputy Head, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor), Moscow, Russian Federation
Biography
Graduated in 2002 from the Tver Medical University, Dr Smolenskiy joined the state public health agency Rospotrebnadzor in 2004 in the Epidemiological Surveillance Department. In 2008, he took the position of Deputy Director of the Science and International Cooperation Department and between 2011 and 2018 he served as Director for Science and International Relations.
Dr Smolenskiy got his PhD in epidemiology in 2012. He also received a master’s degree in business administration from the Kingston University in London. He is an author and co-author of more than 20 scientific publications, including on biological security and IHR related topics, and 2 monographs.
In his day-to-day work, he coordinates multilateral and bilateral international relations of Rospotrebnadzor with UN agencies (including WHO, FAO, UNAIDS, Codex Alimentarius, IAEA etc), relevant international and intergovernmental organizations (CIS, G20, BRICS, WB, SCO, WTO, OECD, BTWC, ASEAN, APEC).
Since 2006, he leads the participation of the Russian Federation in international cooperation and development assistance in the area of public health, especially in implementing IHR and fighting communicable diseases. In this capacity, he worked with more than 20 countries. During the last 10 years under the supervision of Dr Smolenskiy, Rospotrebnadzor implemented more than 20 programs to assist developing countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Africa and South-East Asia in fighting infectious diseases and building their capacities to prevent and respond to outbreaks. He coordinated and was directly involved in the Russian participation in response to the Ebola outbreak in Guinea, led assistance missions to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Vietnam and other countries. In February 2020, he headed the Russian mission to China to conduct consultations on the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-COV2.
His areas of expertise are: public health, IHR implementation, pandemic preparedness and response, global health security, vaccination, epidemic modeling and forecasting, biosecurity, outbreak rapid response teams and mobile labs.
Member
India
Lawyer and Registered Patent Agent, New Delhi, India
Biography
Sunita K Sreedharan is an advocate and a patent agent licensed to practice in India. In her 22 years’ law practice, Sunita developed expertise in Intellectual Property Law more notably in Patent Law and Biodiversity laws of India. Sunita represents clients before the Intellectual Property Offices, the High Courts, the National Biodiversity Authority. She successfully argued on the seminal business method case before the Indian Patent Office, Madras High Court and the IPAB.
Sunita is the founder of SKS Law Associates a Delhi based IP law practice which has earned international reputation for handling intellectual property especially patents in highly specialized areas of technology.
She earned LL.B. (awarded Gold Medal) from The School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology, LL.M. from The George Washington University Law School, Washington DC, USA, M.Sc. in Cytogenetics, an MBA in Human Resources Management and Diploma in Computer Science on Systems Analysis and Design. Prior to the practice of law,
A Temporary Advisor to the WHO, Sunita has worked on the effective implementation of International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005
Sunita has had the distinction of being nominated for the “IP Woman of the Year 2008” Award by the organizers of IP Summit held in Brussels on December 4, 2008. She has been recently inducted in the rosters of the International Who’s Who of Professionals. Sunita is a member of LES, APAA, AIPPI and INTA, and has been empanelled as legal counsel for the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights (PPV & FR) Authority, Ministry of Agriculture and later as legal advisor on the Central Technology Management Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). She has been involved in the drafting of various parliamentary bills requiring protection of various intellectual properties including the access and benefit sharing of traditional knowledge.
Sunita is a prolific author and has received several national and international awards in recognition of her work.
IHRRC@who.int
AbdelfattahM@who.int
AginamO@who.int
AlnsourM@who.int
AmothP@who.int
BurciG@who.int
CamachoJ@who.int
ForsythA@who.int
GostinL@who.int
HabibiR@who.int
HaringhuizenG@who.int
JokhdarH@who.int
LiuY@who.int
SafdarR@who.int
SahukhanA@who.int
SamarasekeraD@who.int
SmolenskiyV@who.int
SreedharanS@who.int
WenhamC@who.int
Thanks for reading down this far in the article. Here is some advanced information regarding the intrigue that is happening in regards to the IHR.
The substack article below included a guest blog that is so important, I quoted the entire guest blog below. I highlighted specific sections in bold, but the important thing is that you comprehend the big picture.
I suggest that you subscribe to Geneva Health Files.
Amendments: Questions on Fairness of Content & Procedure.
By K M Gopakumar & Nithin Ramakrishnan
Many developing country Member States and observers were caught by surprise, earlier this year, when the WHO secretariat suggested that the IHR amendment proposals can be referred to a IHR Review Committee (Review Committee). This was during the discussions on the timeline of the IHR amendment process, at the Working group on strengthening WHO preparedness and response to health emergencies (WGPR). There are a few reasons for their surprise.
First, whenever amendment proposals to international legal instruments are submitted by sovereign states, it is not the practice to allow a panel of experts acting in their individual capacity, to offer comments on such proposals. The normal practice is that such proposals are treated on an equal footing and opened for negotiations to find a consensus.
Second, Article 55 of the IHR deals with the amendment process and there is no such requirement to submit the amendment proposals to the scrutiny of any Review Committee. Article 55 (1) reads: “Amendments to these Regulations may be proposed by any State Party or by the Director- General. Such proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration”. Article 55(2) states that the Director General should communicate the amendment texts to all State parties at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration”.
Article 50(1)(a) states that “The Director-General shall establish a Review Committee, which shall carry out the following functions: (a) make technical recommendations to the Director-General regarding amendments to these Regulations”. However, it is understood that such technical recommendations are generally after the adoption of amendments or whenever any amendment proposals come from the DG. The word used in Article 50(1) is amendment and not amendment proposals. The 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted the amendment proposed by the USA without referring to the IHR Review Committee, for example.
While many Member States welcomed the Secretariat’s suggestion in good faith to appoint a IHR Review Committee, they also insisted that the mandate of the Review Committee should be under Article 50 and 51. However many seasoned negotiators and observers viewed this unprecedented suggestion from the Secretariat as a move to rig the process and content of EB 150 decision [EB 150 (3) ] to amend the IHR.
The battle lines on the discussions around the IHR amendments were already drawn, when developed countries proposed more stringent obligations on preparedness especially surveillance without any corresponding obligations on various aspects health response. There is no clarity on the obligations for predictable availability of health products required for the response to public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), and for the access and benefit sharing emanating from the utilisation of samples of pathogens collected from humans. Developed countries like the EU want to limit the equity elements in the health emergency only to the pandemic context and therefore do not want such obligations to include the IHR amendments.
Director-General Exceeds the WHA Mandate?
The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the IHR Review Committee endorses the above mentioned apprehensions. The mandate emanating from the WHA 75(9), provides for technical recommendations on the proposed amendments. It states: “in accordance with Part IX, Chapter III, of the International Health Regulations (2005), in particular Article 50, paragraphs 1(a) and 6, with particular attention to be paid to the fulfilment of the letter and spirit of Article 51, paragraph 2, to make technical recommendations on the proposed amendments referred to in sub-paragraph (c) below, with a view to informing the work of the WGIHR”.
It appears that the DG Tedros has stretched the mandate under Article 50(1)(a) and entrusts the mandate to IHR Review Committee to pass judgment on the proposals from State Parties.
Setting Boundaries
The Terms of Reference prima facie set boundaries on the scope of the amendments. For instance, the first task: Analysis of each of the proposed amendments to the IHR submitted no later than 30 September 2022, has many variables. As per this mandate, the IHR Review committee is expected to carry out an analysis of the pertinence of the amendment proposals vis-à-vis the purpose and scope of the IHR, as defined in Article 2. It raises an interesting question on how the Review Committee would carry out such an exercise on a proposal to amend Article 2 of the IHR.
(Article 2 of the IHR: The purpose and scope of these Regulations are to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.)
The Review Committee is also expected to check the “Compatibility and consistency with the Working Draft of a WHO Convention, Agreement, or other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response” (Document A/INB/2/3). This is quite a baffling assignment because the content of the document is not even a negotiated document and only a compilation by the Secretariat and the Bureau of INB. This proposed instrument is expected to deal with only pandemics - a subset of Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Thus, it can be inferred that, examining the compatibility of amendment proposals with a document where there is no consensus or clarity regarding the normative content is an attempt to limit the inclusion of equity provisions in IHR by stating that equity will be addressed in the new pandemic instrument.
This move sets a de-facto scope of the amendment proposal by overruling the decision of the World Health Assembly and the Executive Board. EB150(3) sets the scope of the IHR amendment, which explicitly states that the Amendments should “address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the International Health Regulations (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner.”
Surprisingly, the ToRs do not even refer to the EB 150 decision in the scope of work which really sets the boundary for the amendment proposals.
A mandate to override the prerogative of State Parties?
The mandate of the Review Committee as per WHA 75 (9) is to “to make technical recommendations on the proposed amendments”. However, the ToRs also give the mandate for reformulation and/or clarification.
According to the ToRs, “ rewording, rephrasing, inclusion of cross- references to other relevant articles of the IHR, inclusion of compliance monitoring elements – and/or consolidation, if/when necessary, of the text of the article intended to be amended, as well as of the text of any other article of the Regulations that needs amendments for the article intended to be amended to be applicable. Such proposals shall ensure the internal consistency, integrity, and robustness of the text of the IHR, as well as the compatibility and consistency with any other relevant international legal instrument under the auspices of intergovernmental and international organization. Each of the above mentioned proposals for reformulation and/or refinement by the IHR Amendments RC shall be accompanied by its rationale, including the reason/s why amendments proposed by States Parties have not been totally or partially retained, or have been reallocated to an article different from the one initially intended to be amended.”
This gives a clear mandate to the Review Committee even to recommend the deletion of an amendment proposed by States Parties. This could vitiate the negotiating process. By commenting on the proposals of State Parties, the Review Committee can potentially be seen as exercising power.
Similarly, the ToRs also tasks the Review Committee “to advise on definitions of terms, either new or existing terms the meaning of which might be changed following the proposed amendments, to ensure clarity and consistency; as well as to advise on whether the inclusion, in the text of the IHR, of an explicit taxonomy related to the nature of amendments (e.g., targeted amendments, conforming amendments, technical adjustments, updates, “reopening the instrument”) is warranted and, if so, to formulate a proposal in that respect.”.
This is an attempt to classify the proposals on whether they fall within the definition of targeted amendments. This could also discredit progressive proposals that do not fall within the category of ‘targeted amendments.
Extended Timeline
Though the WHA 75(9) sets time line to the “Review Committee submit its report to the Director-General no later than 15 January 2023”, ToR extends this further to January 2024.
While the mandate of WHA75(9) only requires to provide technical recommendations on the proposed amendments submitted before 30th September 2022, the ToR is asking the Review Committee to review “the package of amendments agreed by the WGIHR” later in December 2023-January 2024. This back door extension of the duration of the Review Committee bears the danger of unduly influencing the negotiations.
The Terms of Reference shows that the Review Committee is a ploy to reinforce the status quo in the IHR Regime by discrediting the proposals of developing countries aiming to bring equity and justice in the international public health emergency regime. The ToRs clearly move away from the spirit of WHA decision 75(9), which agreed in good faith, to refer the amendment proposals to the Review Committee for technical recommendations.
Such a process may create trust deficit in the functioning of Working Group on Amendments to the IHR (2005) (WGIHR), the State Party mechanism to lead the amendment process. Such a move may also create trust deficits even before negotiations on the amendments begin.
We would wait to see if the process will be fair and legitimate.
SOURCES:
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75(9)-en.pdf
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-1.html
https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf
https://www.who.int/teams/ihr/about
For any information about this Review Committee, please contact ihrrc@who.int
Terms Of Reference
189KB ∙ PDF File
This is the 40th article in this series.
Multilingual information regarding the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
TEN THINGS EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE WHO'S PROPOSED "PANDEMIC TREATY"
Get the United States OUT of the United Nations and The World Health Organization A.S.A.P.
World Health Organization Virtual Press Conference on Global Health Issues
The People's Amendments to the International Health Regulations
Secret Meetings at the WHO
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
Rise of the Robot-Child
One of the central theses of this blog is that kiddos everywhere are being actively groomed for an exciting existence of never-ending Biosecurity Terror and Permanent Sadness.
If your goal is to create a digital Panpoopticon [not a typo — Edward], focusing your energies on crushing young souls is a no-brainer. Why waste your time with cantankerous 20-somethings, Chardonnay-swilling 30-somethings, Boomers, or other Ancients? They are preoccupied with Netflix. Out with the Old, in with the New!
It’s a very real problem—and not just in Russia. We have written about this topic before (“Russia's creepiest bank is cattle-tagging children”, January 19; and “Biosecurity grooming”, May 4), and unfortunately we must report that the situation is rapidly deteriorating.