Dear Libby, thanks so much for sending out this latest version!
Keeping "non-binding", in relation to standing and temporary recommendations, is better. Although, as you have pointed out, our Government is already able to fully implement all WHO recommendations (with a few extra measures of their own thrown in!). Also, clarifying a pandemic as "infectious" is useful to prevent it applying to anything and everything.
IMO, the major point of contention for the Australian Government would be the cost of implementing these regulations and providing "equivalent" funding to developing countries for facilities and medications - substantial additional budget would need to be allocated to cover this. The JSCOT committee does include Treasury representation and I would think that they would need ballpark costings for all this. (I notice that the word "audit" does not appear in the text of the IHR, so the WHO and developing countries may not need to account for how they spend this?). Ultimately all these extra taxpayer $$ represent a huge new market opportunity to the corporations building the facilities and supplying the drugs!
The new "National IHR Authority" looks to be, effectively, setting up a local WHO presence in each country, funded by the local country, with the sole aim of implementing the WHO's recommendations. Each country is also obliged to implement domestic laws to allow the IHR Authority to implement regulations:
Article 4
1.bis The National IHR Authority shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the territory of the State Party.
2. bis States Parties shall take measures to implement paragraphs 1, 1. bis, and 2 of this Article, including, as necessary, by allocating human and financial resources [, DEL ] and adjusting their [national law DEL ] [domestic legislative and administrative arrangements ] in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59.
Article 59 paragraph 3
If a State is not able to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements fully with these Regulations within the period set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, that State shall submit within the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article a declaration to the Director-General regarding the outstanding adjustments and achieve them no later than 12 months after the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party.
It is very concerning that our Public health officials and weak health ministers have no regard for their citizens freedom and ability to judge the risks for themselves.
It is extraordinary and very disheartening that the UK Covid enquiry seems to be coming up with bizarre conclusion that they should have locked down harder for longer.
They seem to have ignored Sweden’s success. Keep up the excellent work. Thank you.
If this version is so much better, why is it not an official version that readers can rely on? What is the provenance of this "unofficial" version? How was it obtained? By whom? How was it allowed to be made public when everything else about the IHR amendments has been top secret?
You are right not wrong Libby. The devil is in the detail. The detail is the regulation. The regulators are the profiteers of the regulations. The fox is guarding the hen house, therefore "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
In reviewing SB 133, Mr. Groves said there’s nothing in the legislation that says Louisiana is not going to cooperate with health officials who offer assistance.
As for the WHO Pandemic Accord, he said it “isn’t something the United States should support.”
“The current treaty has a lot to do with making wealthy countries share their technology, vaccines, and intellectual property with vaccine development with poor countries,” he explained. “That’s our main problem with the current draft. It doesn’t do much to prevent future pandemics. It’s geared toward reacting to the next pandemic by sharing intellectual property and vaccines, which is a problem. That’s what the poor, developing world wants but that’s a problem for countries like the U.S. and countries in Western Europe that are going to be developing these vaccines at great expense.”
“I would be more fearful of our federal government trying to impose mandates than the WHO or WEF,” he said.
Regarding “Why would we want to commit ourselves to lockdowns (for example) next time, if that’s what the WHO recommends?” We need to ask who will benefit from Pandemic preparedness lockdowns and austerity measures? Upon what evidence of a risk would warrant pandemic preparedness declarations?
Rebutting bizarre assertions about the WHO's negotiations
These grossly wrong assertions were made 2 days ago by someone we had trusted:
“… you should realize the following:
• The WHO negotiations are NOT an attack on national sovereignty.
• The WHO negotiations are NOT about mandates or lockdowns.
• The WHO negotiations are NOT about attempting to seize control of the doctor-patient relationship.
• The WHO negotiations are NOT a plot that has been planned and is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party
• The WHO negotiations will NOT be countered by standing up for states’ rights, or by state nullification.”
But they are simply wrong and there has been no correction or clarification.
1. The WHO Treaty claims it is not an attack on sovereignty, but what else can you call it when the WHO will get to declare emergencies and then dictate to 196 nations what they must do; how much they must spend; whether to use specific drugs or vaccines, etc? I dealt with this yesterday here.
2. Article 18 of the International Health Regulations gives the WHO, once the word “binding” that has been added in an amendment has been approved, the power to order and enforce vaccine mandates and lockdowns.
The provisions in both the Treaty and Amendments dictate censorship of health “misinformation and disinformation” thus controlling what information your doctor can access. Article 43 paragraph 4 in the Amendments gives the WHO the right to order that certain drugs be withheld during a declared public health emergency. That seems like an uncountenanceable intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship to me.
4. I cannot comment on the role of the Chinese since I don’t know what it is
5. I just explained in a recent substack post why standing up for the rights of states to regulate health is critically important, and pointed out that the executive branch lacks the authority to delegate any powers to the WHO over American citizens, in any event.
*The issue of where power lies and who has the power to delegate it to the WHO is critically important for us all. This is the reason why the EU suddenly asserted that its competence in health is high and the WHO asserted that it had the authority to negotiate with the EU, despite the fact the EU is not a member of the WHO: it is an attempt to supercede individual European nations’ authority and negotiate a transfer of power from all 27 member nations to the WHO. Precisely what our federal government is doing.
*This was a very important week, in which the legal issues came into sharp focus and we the people felt hopeful that we could evade the legal traps that have been set.
And that was when the “Red Herrings” post appeared on March 29, throwing large numbers of people into a tizzy of confusion. Was our movement getting too strong, and was long-established trust risked to finally try and derail us?
The March 7, 2024 version of the Treaty is the same repackaged tyranny that was found in the 6 earlier versions. Don’t get confused and don’t give up.
***This is the real message of the red herrings: We are over the target.
Yes I agree that the governments of most countries WANT to implement these WHO documents but our governments behavior is unconstitutional and that is why some states are already putting out protections against them. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government of our country the authority to allow an
unelected pack of bureaucrats dictate health policy. As a matter of fact our own government violates the Constitution too because they also do not have the authority to dictate health policy for the states either. But because the states and the people of the states are constitutionally illiterate and/or corrupt they allow constitutional violations. They take the supremacy clause, the general welfare clause etc. and twist the original intent to fit their agenda. They no longer teach constitutional law in law school. Why? They no longer teach students the founding documents. Why? Why, because people who do not know their rights are easy to control. We don't have to fight the WHO we have to fight our own government and that starts at the state level. The Pandemic Agreement says SHALL 214 times in its 29 pages dated March 13, 2024. The IHR in their mind IS binding and that's all that matters to them. Let's not marginalize the danger of these 2 agreements. They are our own government working in concert with a corrupt organization(s) to enslave us. I guarantee the first PHEIC they will invoke will be climate change, the hoax to rob every right and freedom so many have died to protect because none of this is about health. It is all about greed, depopulation and total control and the COVID hoax just like the climate change hoax and fear are the tools they use. COVID was the perfect set up. At the end of the day it is pure evil and it will be up to the 8 billion people on this earth to stand up and fight back or lay down and accept your slavery. Either way it will be ugly.
Dear Libby, thanks so much for sending out this latest version!
Keeping "non-binding", in relation to standing and temporary recommendations, is better. Although, as you have pointed out, our Government is already able to fully implement all WHO recommendations (with a few extra measures of their own thrown in!). Also, clarifying a pandemic as "infectious" is useful to prevent it applying to anything and everything.
IMO, the major point of contention for the Australian Government would be the cost of implementing these regulations and providing "equivalent" funding to developing countries for facilities and medications - substantial additional budget would need to be allocated to cover this. The JSCOT committee does include Treasury representation and I would think that they would need ballpark costings for all this. (I notice that the word "audit" does not appear in the text of the IHR, so the WHO and developing countries may not need to account for how they spend this?). Ultimately all these extra taxpayer $$ represent a huge new market opportunity to the corporations building the facilities and supplying the drugs!
The new "National IHR Authority" looks to be, effectively, setting up a local WHO presence in each country, funded by the local country, with the sole aim of implementing the WHO's recommendations. Each country is also obliged to implement domestic laws to allow the IHR Authority to implement regulations:
Article 4
1.bis The National IHR Authority shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the territory of the State Party.
2. bis States Parties shall take measures to implement paragraphs 1, 1. bis, and 2 of this Article, including, as necessary, by allocating human and financial resources [, DEL ] and adjusting their [national law DEL ] [domestic legislative and administrative arrangements ] in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 59.
Article 59 paragraph 3
If a State is not able to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements fully with these Regulations within the period set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, that State shall submit within the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article a declaration to the Director-General regarding the outstanding adjustments and achieve them no later than 12 months after the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party.
Thanks very helpful comments/insights
Very interesting assessment Libby.
It is very concerning that our Public health officials and weak health ministers have no regard for their citizens freedom and ability to judge the risks for themselves.
It is extraordinary and very disheartening that the UK Covid enquiry seems to be coming up with bizarre conclusion that they should have locked down harder for longer.
They seem to have ignored Sweden’s success. Keep up the excellent work. Thank you.
If this version is so much better, why is it not an official version that readers can rely on? What is the provenance of this "unofficial" version? How was it obtained? By whom? How was it allowed to be made public when everything else about the IHR amendments has been top secret?
c'est simple aucun texte ne peut avoir un caractère obligatoire uniforme pour tous...
chaque pays doit gérer en fonction de SA politique !
la mondialisation est un fléau de plus dans le monde...
You are right not wrong Libby. The devil is in the detail. The detail is the regulation. The regulators are the profiteers of the regulations. The fox is guarding the hen house, therefore "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
Say NO to the WHO https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=746475&post_id=143439350&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=zjt6q&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1OTcxMDg1MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQzNDM5MzUwLCJpYXQiOjE3MTI4MDI2MjAsImV4cCI6MTcxNTM5NDYyMCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTc0NjQ3NSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.MzsuR1E4ziko4aGBGrnVeQ0c5PhBSI1LhaVJvAkqO5U
What do you do? https://merylnass.substack.com/p/press-conference-at-the-capitol-right?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Thanks Meryl for your ongoing substacks like this https://merylnass.substack.com/p/louisiana-senate-passes-bill-declaring?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 "...Louisiana is tracking very closely what the federal government is committing to and it’s signaling, ‘Don’t come down to Louisiana with mandates that have been developed in an international forum and expect us to salute and comply,’” he said.
In reviewing SB 133, Mr. Groves said there’s nothing in the legislation that says Louisiana is not going to cooperate with health officials who offer assistance.
As for the WHO Pandemic Accord, he said it “isn’t something the United States should support.”
“The current treaty has a lot to do with making wealthy countries share their technology, vaccines, and intellectual property with vaccine development with poor countries,” he explained. “That’s our main problem with the current draft. It doesn’t do much to prevent future pandemics. It’s geared toward reacting to the next pandemic by sharing intellectual property and vaccines, which is a problem. That’s what the poor, developing world wants but that’s a problem for countries like the U.S. and countries in Western Europe that are going to be developing these vaccines at great expense.”
“I would be more fearful of our federal government trying to impose mandates than the WHO or WEF,” he said.
In article 42, what does “to be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner” require? What of that did we see 2020 through 2024?
These are very relevant questions in view of discerning whether to “commit ourselves to following the WHO’s recommendations”
and in figuring out “Why did we follow the WHO’s recommendations during COVID” to know if it would be wise to in the future.
If you analyse undemocratic self interest dealings as outlined here https://democracymanifest.substack.com/p/world-vaccine-congress-april-fools?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2191545&post_id=143170710&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=zjt6q&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email you can see that the Pandemic Preparedness Protocols have more to do with big bucks that mitigating health risks. Public health = Government health; a system by which the Government maintains and perpetuates self interest for the health of self interest with immunity from liability since 1986. This is in no way a democratic health management system. This is wrong.
Regarding “Why would we want to commit ourselves to lockdowns (for example) next time, if that’s what the WHO recommends?” We need to ask who will benefit from Pandemic preparedness lockdowns and austerity measures? Upon what evidence of a risk would warrant pandemic preparedness declarations?
Rebutting bizarre assertions about the WHO's negotiations
These grossly wrong assertions were made 2 days ago by someone we had trusted:
“… you should realize the following:
• The WHO negotiations are NOT an attack on national sovereignty.
• The WHO negotiations are NOT about mandates or lockdowns.
• The WHO negotiations are NOT about attempting to seize control of the doctor-patient relationship.
• The WHO negotiations are NOT a plot that has been planned and is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party
• The WHO negotiations will NOT be countered by standing up for states’ rights, or by state nullification.”
But they are simply wrong and there has been no correction or clarification.
1. The WHO Treaty claims it is not an attack on sovereignty, but what else can you call it when the WHO will get to declare emergencies and then dictate to 196 nations what they must do; how much they must spend; whether to use specific drugs or vaccines, etc? I dealt with this yesterday here.
2. Article 18 of the International Health Regulations gives the WHO, once the word “binding” that has been added in an amendment has been approved, the power to order and enforce vaccine mandates and lockdowns.
The provisions in both the Treaty and Amendments dictate censorship of health “misinformation and disinformation” thus controlling what information your doctor can access. Article 43 paragraph 4 in the Amendments gives the WHO the right to order that certain drugs be withheld during a declared public health emergency. That seems like an uncountenanceable intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship to me.
4. I cannot comment on the role of the Chinese since I don’t know what it is
5. I just explained in a recent substack post why standing up for the rights of states to regulate health is critically important, and pointed out that the executive branch lacks the authority to delegate any powers to the WHO over American citizens, in any event.
*The issue of where power lies and who has the power to delegate it to the WHO is critically important for us all. This is the reason why the EU suddenly asserted that its competence in health is high and the WHO asserted that it had the authority to negotiate with the EU, despite the fact the EU is not a member of the WHO: it is an attempt to supercede individual European nations’ authority and negotiate a transfer of power from all 27 member nations to the WHO. Precisely what our federal government is doing.
*This was a very important week, in which the legal issues came into sharp focus and we the people felt hopeful that we could evade the legal traps that have been set.
And that was when the “Red Herrings” post appeared on March 29, throwing large numbers of people into a tizzy of confusion. Was our movement getting too strong, and was long-established trust risked to finally try and derail us?
The March 7, 2024 version of the Treaty is the same repackaged tyranny that was found in the 6 earlier versions. Don’t get confused and don’t give up.
***This is the real message of the red herrings: We are over the target.
Yes I agree that the governments of most countries WANT to implement these WHO documents but our governments behavior is unconstitutional and that is why some states are already putting out protections against them. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government of our country the authority to allow an
unelected pack of bureaucrats dictate health policy. As a matter of fact our own government violates the Constitution too because they also do not have the authority to dictate health policy for the states either. But because the states and the people of the states are constitutionally illiterate and/or corrupt they allow constitutional violations. They take the supremacy clause, the general welfare clause etc. and twist the original intent to fit their agenda. They no longer teach constitutional law in law school. Why? They no longer teach students the founding documents. Why? Why, because people who do not know their rights are easy to control. We don't have to fight the WHO we have to fight our own government and that starts at the state level. The Pandemic Agreement says SHALL 214 times in its 29 pages dated March 13, 2024. The IHR in their mind IS binding and that's all that matters to them. Let's not marginalize the danger of these 2 agreements. They are our own government working in concert with a corrupt organization(s) to enslave us. I guarantee the first PHEIC they will invoke will be climate change, the hoax to rob every right and freedom so many have died to protect because none of this is about health. It is all about greed, depopulation and total control and the COVID hoax just like the climate change hoax and fear are the tools they use. COVID was the perfect set up. At the end of the day it is pure evil and it will be up to the 8 billion people on this earth to stand up and fight back or lay down and accept your slavery. Either way it will be ugly.