The WHO health measures are compatible only with any country that mandates digital ID. Now we know why the ALP is hell-bent to introduce it next year.
By Senator Malcolm Roberts
July 14, 2023 In September 2022 the United States, supported by Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, proposed a Treaty enabling the WHO to have the power to take over member states’ health measures, allowing the WHO to mandate health measures directly on everyday Australians. Proposed measures include compulsory vaccination through mandatory detention and forced medical procedures.
Other measures include the power to order border closures (including internal borders such as between Australian states), shutdowns for businesses & schools, international vaccine passports, restrictions on product sales (such as those which may compete with approved pharmaceuticals) and much more. The Treaty would also elevate the billionaire owners of the WHO to full member status as “stakeholders”, meaning Pfizer for instance could vote on declaring a health emergency and mandating Pfizer vaccines. Fortunately, the constitution of the World health Organisation prevented their executive simply signing off on these new powers. The only body that can change the rulebook at the WHO is an assembly of all 194 members states, called a World Health Assembly (WHA).
The proposed treaty
In September 2022 the United States, supported by Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, proposed a Treaty enabling the WHO to have the power to take over member states’ health measures, allowing the WHO to mandate health measures directly on everyday Australians. Proposed measures include compulsory vaccination through mandatory detention and forced medical procedures.
Other measures include the power to order border closures (including internal borders such as between Australian states), shutdowns for businesses & schools, international vaccine passports, restrictions on product sales (such as those which may compete with approved pharmaceuticals) and much more. The Treaty would also elevate the billionaire owners of the WHO to full member status as “stakeholders”, meaning Pfizer for instance could vote on declaring a health emergency and mandating Pfizer vaccines. Fortunately, the constitution of the World health Organisation prevented their executive simply signing off on these new powers. The only body that can change the rulebook at the WHO is an assembly of all 194 members states, called a World Health Assembly (WHA).
Tedros Ghebreyesus responded to the proposal by appointing the IHR Working Group to oversee the changes from a procedural perspective, and an IHR Review Committee with leading WHO health experts from around the world to flesh out the actual detail. In December of 2022, Ghebreyesus called a special meeting of the World Health Assembly to adopt these measures. However, resistance from the African bloc prevented the changes from passing. It is important to understand the WHA does not vote, they work off consensus.
While the 42-strong African bloc are only 24% of the membership, a measure which only has the support of 76% of the Assembly does not have “consensus”, so the proposal was not voted in – instead it was deferred. The IHR Review Committee was then tasked with refining the proposal for discussion at the May 2023 WHA before a final vote in the WHA set for May, 2024. The Committee initially reported in January 2023 that the amendments to elevate the WHO as ‘world health police’ should proceed. However, their report was greeted with such strong opposition they immediately backtracked.
In February 2023 the Committee issued a final report which withdrew the onerous parts of the regulation changes that impacted human rights and dignity and left behind just the commonsense recommendations based on lessons learned during COVID. The Committee also pointed out the WHO charter explicitly calls on the WHO to be a voluntary organisation that must be invited in by host nations. Giving WHO powers to compel is a direct breach of their charter and should prevent the proposed changes from passing. The Committee went on to say the proposal has cost the WHO significant loss of goodwill and would take them away from their core business of providing health support.
This is the “victory” I mentioned in a video in early February 2023, which is being posted up by some people on social media 6 months later as though it were current news and without the context I provided. This is misleading people for clicks and subscriptions. The one part that was left in the IHR amendments was the section that allowed for a global digital health certificate. However, the current wording only allows the WHO to co-operate when someone else introduces a digital ID, it does not allow the WHO to introduce one.
This is why the WHO are partnering with the EU Digital Health Certificate, which nations around the world are adopting of their own accord. So please be clear, the fight over a digital health passport is not with the WHO, the fight is with any national government that introduces a digital ID or digital vaccine passport. The WHO has no power to mandate the use of digital ID or vaccine passports, our own governments are doing this to us by themselves, with the UN cheering them on, of course.
