Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

Wake The Fuck Up!


Biden signs all your medical choices and more over to Globalists at WHO...


New WHO Amendments Creating A Global Regime In The Name Of Health

Authored by Dr. Sean Lin and Jacky Guan via The Epoch Times,

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/new-who-amendments-creating-a-global-regime-in-the-name-of-health_5100085.html
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb3/A_INB3_3-en.pdf
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/healthprotection/ghs/ihr/index.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/two-sides-of-a-deadly-coin-the-lockdown-and-reopening-of-china_5007389.html
https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinas-novel-health-tracker-green-public-health-red-data-surveillance
https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/woman-miscarries-outside-hospital-in-china-after-being-refused-treatment-due-to-covid-rules/
https://www.who.int/news/item/17-10-2022-one-health-joint-plan-of-action-launched-to-address-health-threats-to-humans--animals--plants-and-environment
https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2023C04/

Since its establishment, the World Health Organization (WHO) has
assumed the role of an advisory entity in the international health
domain. Since 2005, 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 illustrates 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, seeking to enhance the WHO’s
power under the guise of the IHR. This, 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, raises several red flags on the paradigm
shift the WHO is undertaking, from playing the role of an
international health advisory body to becoming a global regime acting
in the name of health.
>From Patient-Doctor Relationship to Powerful Health Conglomerate

Throughout history, people have relied on connections with friends,
family, and neighbors to maintain a healthy social life. This is
important not only for wellness but also for building the trust upon
which the foundation of relationships lies. Just as it is vital in
relationships with family and friends, in regard to health, trust is
vital in patient-doctor relationships.

Doctors across many countries and diverse regions have a plethora of
different methods to treat something as simple as a cold. Some may
give you a flu shot, some may prescribe you some minor medication, and
some 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.
WHO: A Global Regime in the Name of Health?

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, 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 with
regard to sharing data, allowing a probe into the origins of the
virus, and issues involving the most recent unprecedented spike of
infections and death 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 that will strengthen the WHO’s power
considerably pertaining to global health emergencies. For example, the
WHO will have the power to act upon potential rather than actual
emergencies, and allow the director-general of the WHO control over
the production of medication that may be allocated 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 and grant the
organization the capacity to censor what it considers misinformation
and disinformation, should the amendments be adopted. This is a
serious threat to the sovereignty of every WHO member.

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 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.
A Global Health Certificate System With Multiple Risks

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.
The INB Might Be Another Excuse for Control

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.

Public opinion regarding how well the WHO handled the COVID-19
pandemic seems to vary among nations. (The Epoch Times)

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.

When asked about their stance on vaccine passports, 1,315 Americans
were divided between deeming passports issued by the government and
ones issued by private entities as acceptable. (The Epoch Times)

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. Have people been
well-informed and educated about these changes? Shouldn’t there be
more public and open debates for more transparency to show what is
coming if the amendments are adopted? Why is the mainstream media not
picking up on this?