The World Health Organization (WHO) is pushing for an unelected global regime to be established, arguing that a single governing body is essential for handling future pandemics.
By creating a single global authority, the WHO would be able to order once-sovereign nations to roll out vaccination and mask mandates, vaccine passports, widespread lockdowns, and other totalitarian pandemic measures, all under international law for the sake of public health.
Since its creation as a specialized agency of the United Nations in 2005, the WHO has assumed the role of an advisory entity in the international health domain.
The WHO established International Health Regulations (IHR) as the main compliance tool to ensure that public health emergencies would be handled swiftly.
The Covid pandemic perfectly demonstrates how powerful the WHO already is.
However, a new set of amendments (pdf) proposed by state members of the WHO was published at the end of 2022.
As Slay News has reported, these new amendments seek to vastly enhance the WHO’s power under the guise of the IHR.
This is in addition to a newly proposed Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) (pdf) and the addition of a pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (WHO CA+) clause (pdf) in the INB.
These moves raise several red flags regarding the paradigm shift that the WHO is undertaking.
The UN agency is rapidly advancing from playing the role of an international health advisory body to becoming an unelected global regime acting in the name of health.
Throughout history, people have placed trust in patient-doctor relationships when it comes to their personal health.
In many countries and diverse regions around the world, doctors have a plethora of different methods to treat something as simple as a cold.
Some may give you a flu shot, while some may prescribe you some minor medication.
Some doctors might even tell you to drink hot soup and get lots of rest.
There may also be an unfamiliar remedy from Latin America or Southeast Asia that works just as well as something you could pick up in a U.S. pharmacy.
This is all to say that well-trained doctors know what they’re doing given the methods available to them.
The one-on-one patient-doctor relationship has traditionally been the tried-and-true way to establish a health system in any society.
Even under evidence-based medicine, advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or other health agencies serves as nonbinding recommendations to doctors that give them the right to make their own decisions based on their knowledge of the patient.
People make their own final health-related decisions; hence, doctors need consent from their patients for treatment or surgeries.
The trust people give to their doctors is sacred and demands that doctors practice medicine grounded in ethics and based on genuine medical knowledge, skills, and experience—all things that most doctors still have.
Notwithstanding what has been the norm for generations, the advancement of modern medicine and biotechnology has made the fields of health and medicine huge industries.
As a result, the quality of health care has become increasingly dependent on the allocation of resources and distribution of wealth.
Big Pharma, powerful health agencies, and dominant health insurance enterprises are all intertwined, forming a tremendous conglomerate of power.
In the name of protecting the people, this manifestation of power has reached an unprecedented level, which was on full display during the pandemic in the form of lockdowns, mandates, the rush of drugs and vaccines, insurance policies determining diagnosis, etc.
Then we have international organizations like the WHO with a role many people deem too arbitrary to consider an eminent element in their life.
It was created within the United Nations and historically played a coordinating role in global health issues and resources, in helping with public health threats like polio, AIDS, and Covid.
However, its latest proposed reform raises a serious concern over whether the WHO is turning into a global quasi-regime.
The newest changes the WHO is facing are amendments to the International Health Regulations agreement.
The World Health Assembly first adopted the IHR in 1969 to cover six diseases and it has since been revised several times.
A fully updated version was implemented in 2005 after China’s SARS outbreak in 2003.
The update came after the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) refused to maintain transparency during the outbreak.
This 2005 edition of the IHR is now facing stark changes.
The IHR demands WHO nations detect, assess, report, and respond appropriately in regard to public health emergencies that can spread on an international scale.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during its onset, China demonstrated an aptitude for disinformation and a lack of transparency toward the international community.
The CCP refused to share data or allow a probe into the origins of the virus.
There have also been issues involving the most recent unprecedented spike of infections and deaths after the country lifted its “Zero-Covid” restrictions.
Not unrelated to these international incidences, the WHO has published a number of amendments to the IHR.
These changes will drastically strengthen the WHO’s powers pertaining to global health emergencies.
For example, the WHO will have the power to act upon potential, rather than actual, emergencies.
This will allow the director-general of the WHO to control the production of medication that may be allocated to nations as he or she deems fit.
One concern is that the WHO will have the authority to override health measure decisions made by individual nations under these new global laws.
The powers will also grant the organization the capacity to censor what it considers “misinformation” and “disinformation,” overriding the constitutional rights of Americans, for example.
This is a serious threat to the sovereignty of every one of the WHO’s 194 member states, which represent 98% of all the countries in the world.
Another startling change was the removal of “respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons” in Article 3 of the IHR, replaced with the “woke” terms “equity” and “inclusivity.”
At the same time, the WHO’s new amendments change the advisory nature of the IHR to that of law, meaning that the organization will hold just as much power—if not more—compared with a governing body with legally binding jurisdiction and enforcement capabilities.
The aforementioned changes, and many more, are troubling because the amendments are vague in nature and leave much room for interpretation. For example, the amendments do not specify the amount of funding countries need to contribute, which could lead to an escalation of corruption in underdeveloped countries.
During the pandemic, there have been a number of health certificate systems set up across some parts of North America, Europe, and other countries, yet none was as pervasive and heavily enforced as the health QR-code system in China.
Throughout China’s three years of extreme zero-Covid measures, the color of a code on your phone decided whether you were allowed to leave the community grounds, eat in restaurants, or even be admitted to a hospital to give birth.
The QR-code system was able to track your movement and used an algorithm to determine if you were considered at risk of being infected.
If you were at risk, your code would turn yellow and authorities would send you to a quarantine camp at your own expense.
This QR-code system was also attached to your personal bank account so that your mandatory quarantine in a hotel could be paid for before you arrived.
Implemented by a regime that has little regard for human rights, codes were allegedly turned yellow or even red (indicating infection) for citizens who complained about the strict pandemic measures.
Such an invasive system has immense potential to abolish privacy and self-determination, forcing residents to live under an Orwellian regime.
The superficial intent of the health certificate system is benign, yet it could be a convenient tool for driving the establishment of an overarching global government.
It could be an integral component in achieving a globalist agenda without requiring support from the masses.
Health certificates are not the only thing the WHO wishes to add to the world government.
The agency also demands an International Negotiating Body (INB) with the power of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response incorporated into its duties.
Citing the “catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the … pandemic” in its preamble, the zero draft for the INB initiated in 2022 and revised as of February 2023 calls for an international organization with authority exceeding some, if not most, governments across the world that is able to act in response to the next global health emergency.
At the same time, the INB also includes the “One Health” initiative, currently a five-year plan aimed at tackling zoonotic epidemics around the world.
It can be interpreted that the INB would be the acting arm of the WHO “superpower,” while the IHR would provide the legal basis for the arbitrary government.
Funding for these measures, as proposed, would come from the world bank.
While the WHO prepares to ballon its power with these amendments, one question begs an answer: Were people satisfied with how the organization handled the pandemic?
Global public opinion seems to be divided on this topic.
While European and North American developed nations seem to be supportive of the WHO’s efforts, some Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea are voicing their dissatisfaction.
Meanwhile, the policies the WHO is trying to enact are also sources of potent social tension and division.
Many seem to be divided between enacting a private health passport and a government-operated health passport that can be used as proof of vaccination or for similar causes.
Like any good government with checks and balances, doesn’t the WHO also need an objective post-Covid evaluation before the amendments are adopted?
This brings up the issues of what kind of supervising entity the WHO falls under, and whether legal mechanisms exist so the WHO can be held accountable should it fail to handle a critical public health crisis.
These issues need to be addressed before any changes are adopted.
Therefore, one of the most pressing issues here might be the WHO’s lack of transparency and proposed accountability measures.
The language used in the amendment document is extremely vague and leaves much room for interpretation.
At the same time, there seems to be a concerning lack of checks and balances within the proposed new order.
All 194 nations in the WHO are set to vote on the amendments and finalize the new INB by May 2024, which could bring sweeping changes to the livelihood of generations to come.
Democrat President Joe Biden has already confirmed that he plans to approve and sign the amendments and is pushing to do so without congressional approval.
In a recent press release, the Biden admin publicly affirmed the U.S. federal government’s commitment to the agreement.
The accord will give the Chinese Communist Party-linked WHO ultimate control over U.S. pandemic policies such as lockdowns, censorship, masking, vaccine mandates, and public surveillance.
The White House wants to bypass submitting this agreement for Senate approval, arguing that it is not an official treaty despite it having the full force of one.
Not only has the White House committed to signing the agreement, but it was also Biden himself who initiated the amendments in 2021.
READ MORE: WHO Labels Unvaccinated People a ‘Major Killing Force Globally’
