Opinion Piece 13th June 2024
Between the 27th May and 1st June, this year the 77th World Health Authority (WHA) met in Geneva Switzerland. The WHA, is the parent body of the World Health organisation (WHO). Participating nations met to met to supposedly strengthen global capacity to respond to future pandemics and to attempt to ratify the provisions of the (2005) International Health Regulations (IHRs) and to discuss the implementation of a world Pandemic Treaty.
NZ was one of 194 members states who were represented at this assembly.
Over the last two years the WHO has been working on two documents. The first, proposed amendments to the IHR (2005), and the second the world Pandemic Treaty. While the the proposals was supposed to be released to member states four months before this meeting they were not made available to the participating nations until the cusp of meeting.
The International Health Regulation amendments were ratified on June 1st this year. The concern of many is that the WHO's goals are to grant the international health agency expanded authority over members states thus eroding national sovereignty and the violating freedoms. Powers that were sought would allow it not only to declare and manage future pandemics globally, but also to regulate speech and implement digital health passports. These changes sought to even give the WHO the ability to control how nations like NZ develop censorship regimes. Fortunately they have not been totally successful and in fact many of the provisions sought have thankfully failed, but not all; more about that later.
The WHO is also seeking to increase its global power by pursuing a legally-binding new international Pandemic Treaty with member states. This means that any future public health emergencies of international concern could be declared without appropriate scrutiny or oversight and give sweeping powers to the WHO Director-General.
Right to Life like many other organisations is becoming increasingly concerned about the self-appointed role that the WHO has taken upon itself as global guardians of all things related to health and global emergencies. While this organisation undoubtedly has and continues to do some great work around the world many believe it has a darker side which hides an insidious and fraudulent agenda.
Most disturbing is the WHO have been attempting to have nations agree to adopting social control rules that were pioneered by Western Nations during COVID. Among these controls is the ability to censor all critics.
New Zealand like virtually all Western Nations, actively suppressed health information that was not in line with WHO dictates during the Covid-19 pandemic Our very own Jacinda Ardern and her lieutenant Ashley Bloomfield were at the forefront of that suppression here. All information that countered the official narrative on vaccines (and their negative side effects), mandates, alternative treatments, and the use of masks was targeted for deletion, mocked and suppressed.
Bloomfield who has been knighted for his 'services' for NZ during Covid-19, while having disappeared from the New Zealand scene, has in fact been very busy recently and has been at the forefront of pushing the IHR proposals leading up to the recent meeting in Geneva.
While the New Zealand government has stated that the adoption of the IHR amendments by the World Health Assembly is not a legally binding step for member countries, including New Zealand, many countries do consider them binding. Interestingly the Bush administration adopted the regulations in 2005 without asking advice and obtaining consent from the U.S. Senate.
While the NZ government has downplayed the sovereignty issues relating to the IHR's it is important to note the WHO will not give up on their plans for control. If they are successful in future pandemics we will see a very different landscape in New Zealand to that which we saw here during Covid-19. This is because rather than NZ calling the shots, all the member states will have to kowtow to a single unelected official of the UN.
While many of the proposals of the WHO failed to be ratified at the 1st June 2024 signing there were some that were. Among the most concerning were those relating to financing WHO proposals. What is the saying about "He who controls the purse strings...?".
Ratification of article 44 and its associated provisions now give the WHO real financial clout to continue push their global pandemic nefarious agenda forward. The WHO is in the driver’s seat as 'States Parties’ now have consent to ignore procedural requirements to get the job done. These provisions have established a "Coordinating Financial Mechanism". Essentially this new "function" of the WHO which will ensure that the production of Big Pharma products is increased and their distribution facilitated worldwide. The ratified IHR amendments open the door to Perpetual Emergencies. Disturbing.
Critics of the IHR's include Australian doctor David Bell, who was a WHO scientist for 9 years and Professor Professor Ramesh Thakur a former Assistant General Secretary of the United Nations. Their concerns revolve around The deplorable absence of serious questions at the WHA on i) the economic costs versus benefits of this agenda, ii) the potential impact of new amendments on human rights, iii) concerns about lack of accountability and democratic oversight in the treaties and iv) the scientific foundations of the systematic surveillance approach, which signal that the drivers are political, rather than evidence-based.
Professor Thakur has stated that the mechanisms being invoked by the amendments will allow nation states and the WHO to deny culpability for any problems by playing the "blame game' in relation to sovereignty and other issues. He believes they will use legal technicalities to shift responsibility back and forth between the parties.
Bell and Thakur also point out the glaring elephant in the room with regard to the huge shift in funding that will accompany the WHO takeover. The funding of about $30 to $40 billion agreed to, is a massively skewed, taking away of money from the big killers such as sanitation and nutrition and the need for anti-biotics. They believe these are the real health problems of the third world and not pandemics.
They also rightly state that the big killers in the developed world are diabetes, cancer and heart disease and believe that fear is being used in health to drive an authoritarian approach to health.
The Billions sought by the WHO are also tied to financial interests not necessarily friendly to overall public health needs. The WHO, its funders and its beneficiaries are heavily invested in these agreements, In a nutshell we are here talking about big Pharma interests and the commoditisation of health. It is interesting to note that 25% of WHO funding comes from private donors, of whom the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is amongst the biggest.
Dr David Bell believes that talk that the new WHO monies will be new money is nonsense. He believes the money will be taken away from the existing health dollar. During Covid there was a global reduction for other health programmes.
Money would be much better spent on higher burden problems. He also believes that locking down nations will result in huge impoverishment and destruction of GDP. We have already seen how NZ Labour government's throwing billions at Covid-19 achieved little and has saddled future generations with massive debt.
Both Bell and Thakur also believe that the actions taken by Jacinda Ardern in promoting a 'Single source of Truth' were enormously harmful here in NZ and that rather than relying on a narrow expert focus during this sort of emergency, we should seek expertise from a much wider range of experts before making decisions including seeking advice from economists and psychologist for example.
Finally the International Health Regulations and Pandemic Treaty also raise the possibility of the World Health Organization developing system of international vaccination passports, including digital health passports.
Right to Life believes that unless New Zealand pushes back on these plans to globalize health decisions we risk being controlled by external forces whose aims are not necessarily in line with the best interests of this country.
You might ask, what can a single person do in the face of such a power play. A recent post by the NZ organisation Doctors Speaking Out on Science (NZDSOS), recently made these suggestions.
What You Can Do to Take Action and Push Back as the WHO Takeover Intensifies?
Lobby the NZ government to withdraw funding and membership from the WHO.
Meantime, demand the government reject immediately this newly adopted IHR document June 1st, 2024 under Article 61.
Demand the government reject the Pandemic Treaty.
Complain to the NZ government that there was no clear voting process at the 77th WHA assembly, ask them do they think it was a lawful voting process, and not fraudulent?
Get informed and share accurate information. Get the latest version of the IHR (2024) amendments.
Spread the word and send your allies, friends and family information, emails, letters, make videos and start actions together.
Sign and share the Free Humanity open letter calling on government representatives to scrap the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty.
Join NZ Rising and other freedom groups.
Share NZDSOS posts. Print hard copies and deliver to all government MP’s electorate offices and government organisations.
Let authorities, MPs, councilors and bureaucrats know that they will be held personally responsible for harms to those that they serve (see below).
Road to Geneva and global citizens uniting in Geneva was just the beginning. It is time to set our sights on the next major international coalition event at the United Nations (UN) Summit of the Future, September 22-23, 2024.
Never underestimate what you can do – people power is huge!
Chris O'Brien
Vice President Right to Life NZ Inc.
Some useful links