On 18 July, the US officially rejected the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”), citing threats to national sovereignty, free speech and constitutional protections.

If not rejected, the amendments would have allowed the WHO to influence lockdowns, vaccine documentation and pandemic declarations without approval from elected officials or public input.

Austria, Italy and Israel also blocked the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline, each emphasising the need for local control over health policy and rejecting unelected global oversight.

Countries that did not formally reject the amendments by the deadline will be bound by them starting 19 September 2025, while four nations have until the 19^th September 2026 to opt out.

People can still take action by checking their country’s position, pressuring local representatives, informing others and organising efforts to defend national health autonomy.

Please note, for much of the following article, Dr. Joseph Mercola takes the viewpoint of US citizens; what the US population has avoided by the US government rejecting WHO’s IHR amendments. For countries that have not rejected them, it is the opposite.  It is what governments have agreed populations within their countries should be subjected to.

As Dr. Mercola highlights the denial of free speech aspects of WHO’s power grab, we should also consider the global impact on free speech that the UK’s Online Safety Act has ushered in, which is affecting Americans as well.  Coupled with the UK government accepting WHO’s sweeping control through the IHR amendments, we cannot rule out that this could mean information will be controlled globally by WHO through the UK government.

Related: UK’s Online Safety Act has kick-started a global frenzy of online censorship and surveillance

As always, we should recall that there are two WHO instruments: the IHR amendments, which is the subject of this article, and the Pandemic Treaty, which has also been referred to as the Pandemic Agreement, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

US Has Rejected the Amendments to the International Health Regulations

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

When a joint statement comes from both the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State, it’s worth paying attention. On 18 July 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a formal rejection of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).¹

The reason? The changes would give an unelected international body the power to shape national public health decisions – including pandemic declarations, digital health documentation, and so-called “equitable access” to medical products – without democratic oversight or public debate.

This isn’t just about bureaucratic language. These amendments directly impact your right to privacy, freedom of movement and control over your personal health decisions. The updated rules include vague but far-reaching terms that would allow the WHO to interfere with national emergency response measures, compel governments to implement digital health surveillance tools and facilitate narrative control under the guise of risk communication.

The language is intentionally broad – enough to authorise sweeping actions while avoiding accountability. And unlike WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even if a nation had exited the organisation altogether. Italy, Israel and Austria have also rejected or objected to the amendments. Their actions mirror the US stance: health decisions need to remain within national borders and be governed by constitutional protections, not dictated by global bureaucrats.

In each case, officials warned of dangerous overreach, unchecked censorship and the erosion of civil liberties under the pretence of public health. Understanding how these amendments were crafted, what they attempt to enforce and why countries are pushing back is key. The next section breaks down what the US rejection means in practical terms – and what it signals for your future autonomy in the face of global health mandates.

Bureaucrats Abroad Tried to Rewrite American Health Policy – but Failed

US leaders have formally rejected WHO’s expanded authority via the 2024 amendments to the IHR. These changes, according to the joint statement from Kennedy Jr. and Rubio, would have allowed the WHO to bypass American law and impose health directives, including lockdowns and vaccine documentation, without approval from Congress or the American people.²

• The amendments aimed to centralise emergency decisions under WHO control.  The rejected amendments gave the WHO power to define and respond to what it calls a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

The updated language would have allowed the WHO to intervene in a country’s domestic affairs based on subjective interpretations of global solidarity or health equity. This would’ve included the ability to influence pandemic declarations and responses in ways that directly override national public health agencies and local policies.

• Officials warned that vague terms open the door to censorship.  According to the joint statement, the terminology in the amendments was broad and undefined – phrases like “equitable access” and “risk communication” were left open to interpretation. In practice, this means global officials could have justified censorship or surveillance under the excuse of controlling misinformation or ensuring compliance with “equity” goals.

The US response emphasised that this kind of ambiguity undermines scientific debate and allows politically motivated directives to masquerade as public health guidance. By embedding subjective language into binding agreements, international bodies like the WHO create a framework that narrows acceptable discourse and enforces medical compliance with minimal oversight. This is how policy becomes a mechanism for influence, not protection.

• Digital health tracking was a major red flag.  The rejected language also encouraged countries to adopt digital health documents, including vaccine passports and health ID systems. These tools would’ve facilitated international tracking of people’s medical records and health status, linking access to travel, work or services to WHO-defined compliance standards.

The US government made clear it “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

• The US criticised the WHO’s poor track record during outbreaks like covid. The joint statement called out the WHO’s response to the covid-19 pandemic, citing its susceptibility to “political influence and censorship – most notably from China.”

Officials stressed that entrusting the WHO with more control after this history of failed transparency and accountability would be irresponsible. Rather than improving emergency responses, the amendments risked repeating the same communication breakdowns and information suppression that marred the global covid response.

• This decision preserves US medical autonomy.  According to the statement, “public health policy continues to be dictated by the values and will of the American people, not unelected global actors.”

The rejection ensures that American citizens retain constitutional protections and are not subject to directives issued by an international agency that does not answer to them. By refusing to accept the new language, US health policy remains under the control of state and federal agencies, not bureaucrats in Geneva.

Kennedy Slams WHO’s Censorship Agenda and Digital Surveillance Push

As reported by The Hill, Kennedy Jr. warned that the newly proposed amendments to the IHR “open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda and censorship that we saw during the covid-19 pandemic.”³ That kind of control doesn’t just affect officials – it reaches into your life, dictating what information you hear, what platforms allow and how you’re allowed to speak about health.

• Kennedy made it clear: the amendments undermine civil liberties.  “The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardising our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty,” Kennedy stated in a video posted to X (formerly Twitter).⁴

This isn’t abstract policy – it’s about whether unelected officials have the authority to restrict your freedom to travel, gather, speak or make medical decisions during a declared emergency.

• The WHO has no power to mandate, but the amendments would shift that balance.  WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus publicly claimed that the organisation “has never had the power to mandate lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other similar measures.” While technically true under current rules, the new language would have pressured governments to comply with WHO-coordinated responses, including mandates and movement restrictions, without democratic consent.

• The amendments could force countries to create risk communication systems. Kennedy also took aim at a regulation that would require member countries to develop “risk communication” systems. While the term sounds neutral, Kennedy explained that this language is code for information control: systems that control narratives, limit dissent and enforce compliance with official positions.

• Kennedy’s rejection ties back to real-world harms seen during covid.  The article drew a direct line between the proposed rules and the suppression of debate seen in the last pandemic. According to Kennedy, the world has already witnessed what happens when centralised health narratives dominate media, shut down dissent and silence clinicians who question official doctrine. Locking that system into international law would repeat and worsen those mistakes.

Other Nations Joined the US in Refusing IHR Amendments

Austria, Italy and Israel all took formal action to block WHO’s power grab. Their moves weren’t symbolic. Each took legal or parliamentary action to halt the WHO’s expanded emergency powers before the 19 July 2025 deadline.

Across all three nations, a common theme emerged: health policy needs to be made by local officials who are accountable to their people, not by distant bureaucrats. For citizens of those countries, that means their governments preserved the ability to make local health decisions without international interference.⁵

• Austria lodged a legal objection to buy time and preserve autonomy.  Austria’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva filed a legal objection to the IHR amendments on 17 July 2025, just two days before the deadline.⁶ This objection ensures the amendments won’t apply in Austria until the national parliament has formally approved them.

In other words, Austrians now have a window to pressure lawmakers and block the changes permanently. The Ministry of Health confirmed that the rejection was filed to uphold the Austrian Constitution – not as a formality, but to maintain sovereignty over national health policy.

• Italy flatly rejected the amendments, bypassing future enforcement.  Italy’s Health Minister Orazio Schillaci, with the backing of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, formally declined the amendments on 19 July.⁷ Their refusal wasn’t a conditional objection – it was a full rejection.

According to translated excerpts from the Italian newspaper La Verità, the amendments would have given the WHO authority to issue binding recommendations on quarantines, movement restrictions and supply chain management without consulting the Italian Parliament. Schillaci called it an unacceptable breach of democracy and promised to shield citizens from top-down directives that undermine constitutional rights.

• Israel’s leadership withdrew after months of internal review.  In a bold move, Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel would not adopt the new WHO regulations.⁸ The decision came after sustained lobbying from Knesset members, health professionals and legal experts.

Bosso explained that the treaty would give the WHO excessive influence over Israel’s national decisions, especially in areas like defence, economics and education. His final statement made the stakes clear: “This is a complex and considered decision that is intended to protect the interests of the State of Israel and expresses our full responsibility for public health.”

How You Can Push Back and Protect Your Rights

If you’re worried about losing your say in personal health decisions to international agencies, you’re not overreacting – you’re responding to a real shift in power. The 2024 IHR amendments weren’t just technical updates. They were written to centralise control, diminish national sovereignty and give unelected global actors the ability to shape your country’s pandemic response without your input. That’s not a distant threat. It’s already on track to become binding policy in most of the world.

But this isn’t just about politics – it’s about protecting your ability to make informed, voluntary health decisions for yourself and your family. Whether you’re a parent, a business owner or someone who values constitutional protections, you have tools right now to make a difference. Here are five steps I recommend to take action:

1. Find out where your country stands on the 2024 amendments. Start by checking whether your government has submitted a formal rejection or reservation. Most countries had until 19 July 2025 to opt out. If no action was taken by that date, the amendments will become binding on 19 September 2025.

However, if you’re in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand or Slovakia, your government has until 19 September 2026 to make a decision. That means there’s still time to act locally – push your representatives to reject the amendments before that deadline passes.

2. Engage your elected officials directly.  Don’t rely on petitions or mass emails. Pick up the phone, write a physical letter, or request a meeting with your local representative. Ask them where they stand on ceding health authority to the WHO. Be clear: you expect your country to retain full control over national health emergencies, including decisions about lockdowns, quarantine and personal medical freedom. Hold them accountable by documenting their responses and sharing them publicly.

3. Educate others who still don’t know this is happening.  Most people have no idea these amendments exist or what they mean. Talk to your friends, family, neighbours and coworkers. Use clear language – avoid legal or technical jargon. Explain that this isn’t about rejecting health collaboration, but about maintaining constitutional authority and informed consent. Personal conversations are still the most powerful tool for shifting public awareness.

4. Share examples from countries that have already acted. Like the US, Italy, Israel and Austria all formally rejected or legally objected to the 2024 amendments. Their decisions were grounded in protecting civil liberties, national decision-making, and freedom from censorship. Use their language when talking to others – it’s direct, reasonable, and based on the rule of law. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or extreme – it’s responsible governance.

5. Organise locally, start small, but start now. If you’re part of a church, school board, town hall or business network, use those platforms to raise awareness and build momentum. You don’t need to host a rally – start with a discussion group, a Q&A night, or a one-page fact sheet you hand out. The goal is to build informed communities who are ready to advocate for policies that reflect their values – not the agendas of unaccountable international agencies.

You’re not powerless. The laws that govern your health should come from those you elect, not those you’ve never heard of. This is your chance to defend that principle. Take the first step, and help others do the same.

FAQs About the 2024 IHR Amendments

Q: What are the 2024 IHR amendments, and why are they controversial?

A: The 2024 IHR amendments were adopted by the WHO to expand its authority over global health emergencies. These changes give unelected international officials power to influence national decisions on lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and digital health surveillance – without consent from local populations or legislative oversight.

Q: Has the US accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?

A: The US formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on 18 July 2025, in a joint statement by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Their decision was based on protecting U.S. constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and freedom from international mandates.

Q: Which other countries have rejected or objected to the amendments?

A: Italy, Austria and Israel also took action to block the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline. Italy issued a full rejection; Austria filed a legal objection to prevent enforcement without parliamentary approval and Israel withdrew from adoption entirely following internal government review.

Q: Are the amendments binding for countries that didn’t formally reject them?

A: Yes. For countries that did not submit a formal rejection or reservation by 19 July 2025, the amendments are scheduled to become binding on 19 September 2025. However, four countries – Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia – have until 19 September 2026 to opt out due to their prior rejection of the 2022 IHR amendments.

Q: What can I do if I disagree with the WHO’s growing authority over health decisions?

A: Take action by learning your country’s official position, contacting lawmakers, educating your community, sharing examples from countries that rejected the amendments and organising locally. These steps help ensure that public health policy remains under democratic control, not dictated by international agencies.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/15/four-countries-reject-whos-ihr-amendments/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

On Saturday, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) released a statement claiming: “Governments make progress towards agreeing amendments to the International Health Regulations.”

However, as Dr. Meryl Nass pointed out, the main point about this statement is that WHO declared it will not share the finalised International Health Regulations (“IHR”) amendments with the public and member states four months before the vote on it in May 2024 as WHO’s own rules require.

“WHO’s press release states what happened in very general terms, so only the already-initiated will understand it,” Dr. Nass said.

Here are the relevant statements within WHO’s press release:

We will continue work on a range of issues in the inter-sessional period before WGIHR6, as well as in early 2024.

The Co-Chairs noted that, in reference to Decision WHA75(9), it appeared unlikely that the package of amendments would be ready by January 2024. In this regard, the Working Group agreed to continue its work between January and May 2024. The Director-General will submit to the 77th Health Assembly the package of amendments agreed by the Working Group.

Governments make progress towards agreeing amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), World Health Organisation, 7 October 2023

Dr. Nass explained what happened:

Article 55 of the WHO Constitution requires that amendments to WHO documents be offered to the member states and public 4 months in advance of a vote.

The Saudi co-chair said to the public that his Working Group on the IHR amendments may not complete their work by January needed to meet the timeline to be voted on in May 2024. In a choreographed move, he asked Principal Legal Officer Steven Solomon what to do about this. Solomon had already crafted a plan. His plan was to create a specious excuse to ignore the existing rules.

Nobody voted on ignoring them. Nobody said this was okay. It just became a done deal.

The WHO will ignore its own rules and refuse to share the finalised IHR Amendments with the public and member states 4 months before the vote in May 2024, Dr. Meryl Nass, 10 October 2023

Yesterday, Dr. Nass, James Corbett and James Roguski discussed the United Nations, WHO, conflicts of interest and Steven Solomon’s underhand attempt to reinterpret WHO’s rules to pass IHR amendments without the public knowing about it.

Earlier this month, the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (“WGIHR”) gathered for one of their mostly secret meetings.  “They dropped what I think is an absolute bombshell,” Roguski said.

The bombshell was that the co-chair of the Working Group, Dr. Abdullah Asiri of Saudi Arabia, said very clearly that the WGIHR don’t think they’re going to meet their deadline.  This is as outlined by Dr. Nass earlier in this article.

Effectively, Dr. Nass said, Solomon provided a fake legal argument for why WGHIR don’t have to give the public four months to review the IHR amendments before they are voted on at the 77^th Health Assembly in May 2024.

Roguski believes that the legalese Solomon uses to bend the rules is really an attempt to cover up the WGIHR’s failure to bring the Global South and Global North into agreement.  He also believes the whole charade of the IHR amendments negotiations belongs in a World Trade Organisation setting rather than a World Health Organisation setting. “Because they’re not talking about health, they’re talking about money.  This is a trade dispute about intellectual property and ‘equity’,” he said.

Related: 11 United Nations member countries push back against pandemic declaration, Natural News, 29 September 2023

WGHIR are failing at their public front for this agenda, Corbett argued.  It was never about health, he said.  “It was about the money grab.  Well, that’s a very big part of it.  And now they’re trying to cover it up with legalese and bureaucratic nonsense.”

The three analysts agreed that WHO are trying to sneak in their plans without us noticing until it’s too late. The last thing WHO wants is for people to be paying attention to what they’re doing and raise objections.  Let’s not give WHO what they want; let’s raise our voices and make a fuss. #ExitTheWHO

Related: Why you should raise objections with your MP about WHO’s proposed IHR amendments and Pandemic Treaty and Amendments to IHR will enable totalitarianism on a global scale

At the end of last month, the US House of Representatives passed its annual State Department and Foreign Operations spending bill.  The bill specifically prohibits funds to WHO, along with other organisations with nefarious plans. “Now that bill will go to the Senate,” Dr. Nass said. The bill will go back and forth between the House and Senate until a final bill is agreed.  It will be up for a final vote in about a month or so, she added.  And emphasised that “it’s important that we [Americans] talk to our Senators and our Representatives and say: ‘We want these funding cuts to stay in the bill’.”  #DefundThe WHO

Dr. Nass, Corbett and Roguski then deconstructed the propaganda spread by WHO using a promotional video featuring Solomon.  The takedown of WHO’s dishonest narrative is not only informative but rather enjoyable; it’s recommended watching.

Roguski also discussed the true aims of the theatre of the IHR amendments and a Pandemic Treaty “negotiating text.”  Officially, WHO refers to the Pandemic Treaty as the “WHO CA+,” an abbreviation for WHO accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

While this theatre is going on, in the background WHO and its advocates are busy building, among other things, the ‘Global Digital Health Certification Network’, Roguski said.

To add to Roguski’s warning about what is happening behind the scenes, Dr. Nass highlighted a statement by Tedros the Terrorist towards the end of September:

Dr. Tedros said governments and multilateral partners have already commenced building the foundations for a safer world, with the establishment of the Pandemic Fund, the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, the WHO BioHub to voluntarily share novel biological materials [i.e., biological warfare agents], and the mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub. [Emphasis our own]

WHO welcomes historic commitment by world leaders for greater collaboration, governance and investment to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics, World Health Organisation, 20 September 2023

“These things are specified in the versions of the treaty and the amendments that we’ve seen so far … but they haven’t been negotiated, they haven’t been accepted, they haven’t been voted on,” Dr. Nass said.  If this process is about the member nations negotiating and agreeing to the IHR amendments and a Pandemic Treaty, the question is: Why has WHO already started building all these hubs?

To add to WHO’s duplicity, it is steeped in conflicts of interest. In June 2022, Fahrie Hassan, a South African molecular biologist, exposed WHO’s conflicts of interest at the launch of The African Sovereignty Coalition.  Hassan’s presentation is included at the end of the video below. You can also watch Hassan’s 20-minute presentation HERE.  Hassan gave a more comprehensive presentation to the World Council for Health in July 2022 which you can watch HERE and you can find a copy of the slides from his presentation HERE.

If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble, you can watch it on CHDTV HERE.

Show notes:

• Fifth Meeting of the WGIHR: Watch On CHDTV
• Governments Make Progress Towards Agreeing Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)
• James Roguski The Answer Is No Article — Article 55 Sneak Attack
• The World Hypocrisy Organisation
• Article-By-Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)
• Fiscal Year 2024 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill
• More Cuts of Interest in the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Bill – Meryl Nass Substack
• John Kerry – Special Presidential Envoy for Climate
• Pandemic Accord Explained with Steven Solomon
• Who Funds The WHO? James Roguski Substack
• Pandemic Treaty Facts – James Roguski
• National Defense Authorisation Act Fiscal Year 2022
• WHO Welcomes Historic Commitment by World Leaders for Greater Collaboration, Governance and Investment to Prevent, Prepare for and Respond to Future Pandemics
• Article-By-Article Compilation of Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) Submitted in Accordance with Decision WHA75(9) (2022)
• Legally Binding: Second Meeting of The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to Draft and Negotiate a WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response
• Annex 6 International Health Regulations
• Bank For International Settlements
• Petition to the Government of Canada E-4401 (Health)

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2023/10/11/who-tries-to-sneak-in-ihr-amendments/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post WHO tries to sneak in IHR amendments without the approval of member states appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times,

President Joe Biden’s administration is pushing amendments to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing regulations to give Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus unilateral authority to declare a public health emergency in any nation based on whatever evidence he chooses.

The proposed U.S. amendments were forwarded to the WHO in January for consideration next week by the UN’s 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland.

In a Jan. 26 letter to a virtual meeting of WHO’s executive board, Loyce Pace, Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) described “the importance of equity and equitable access to medical countermeasures and the negative impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to the pandemic. We agree that we must all do better.

“The United States led an inclusive and transparent process to develop this decision, as we are mindful that updating and modernizing the IHR [International Health Regulations] are critical to ensuring the world is better prepared for and can respond to, the next pandemic.”

Among the proposed U.S. amendments, one removes an existing requirement in Section 9 that WHO “consult with and seek to obtain verification” from officials in a nation in which a health crisis is suspected before making any public declarations. The same amendment provides that “WHO may take into account reports from sources other than notifications or consultations” from the nation with the suspected problem.

A proposed change to Section 5 would direct WHO to establish “early warning criteria for assessing and progressively updating the national, regional, or global risk posed by an event of unknown causes or sources.”

A proposed amendment to Section 10 requires that the WHO, in the event the nation with the suspected problem doesn’t cooperate within 48 hours, shall “when justified by the magnitude of the public health risk, immediately share with other [nations] the information available to it.”

Nowhere do the amendments or accompanying documents explain how or why U.S. public health officials believe the equity issue in health care would be addressed by giving Tedros the authority to declare a public health emergency on the basis of information provided by a source other than the affected nation.

A search of the White House Press Office website found only one veiled reference to the WHO amendments. That reference was in a Feb. 2 Fact Sheet issued by the White House saying the U.S. “will continue to advance health security and pandemic preparedness abroad, including through strengthening WHO, working with partners towards targeted IHR amendments.”

The proposed amendment Section 5 of the WHO regulations also appears to parallel the Biden administration’s reference in a fact sheet on its proposed 2023 federal budget that was issued in April.

That reference commits the Biden administration to support “global threat detection innovations through a globally connected network of public health surveillance systems that optimizes disease prevention and health promotion as we strengthen surveillance initiatives to provide necessary actionable data before, during, and after a pandemic.”

“The budget includes $2.47 billion in mandatory funding for CDC to include enhancements to domestic sentinel surveillance programs, expansion of domestic and global wastewater surveillance, and investments in global genomic surveillance approaches, as well as global respiratory disease surveillance platforms,” the fact sheet states.

Respiratory surveillance platforms include video cameras and recorders that alert authorities when members of the public are seen coughing or otherwise acting in a manner that could indicate the presence of an infectious disease or help spread one already present in a population. Such equipment is widely used in China.

The Biden WHO amendments are the latest step in the current president’s efforts to reintegrate the U.S. with WHO after his predecessor, President Donald Trump, slashed U.S. funding to the international health organization and then gave notice of U.S. withdrawal.

One of Biden’s first acts as president was to withdraw Trump’s withdrawal notice and to restore U.S. funding, which accounts for half of WHO’s budget. Trump’s dissatisfaction with WHO stemmed from what he saw as the international health organization’s excessive deference to China regarding the origin of the CCP virus, which causes COVID-19.

A White House spokesman didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for information on the amendments and the administration’s rationale for the proposals. An HHS spokesman also didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Critics of the amendments such as Dr. Peter Breggin, however, have not been reluctant to comment on the proposed amendments.

“The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes,” Breggin said in a May 4 post under a byline shared with his wife, Ginger Ross Breggin.

“The power to declare health emergencies is a potential tool to shame, intimidate, and dominate nations. It can be used to justify ostracism and economic or financial actions against the targeted nation by other nations aligned with WHO or who wish to harm and control the accused nation,” Breggin wrote.

Peter Breggin is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, former U.S. Public Health Service officer, and former National Institute on Mental Health (NIMH) consultant. Ginger Ross Breggin is a journalist, author, and medical reform advocate.

Travis Weber, vice president for policy and government affairs at the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, told The Epoch Times that “the American people need to express concern with the White House, especially as our president representing us on the world stage—we need an explanation of what you are doing here and why.”

Weber said Biden administration officials have “not really talked about this, so we need reporters to ask them at a press conference what are they proposing and really get them to explain it. People can express their concern about that to the White House and express concern to their members of Congress, and we need Members of Congress to challenge the administration to explain themselves. Part one of this is: ‘What is going on, what are you proposing, and why.’”

Similarly, Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel public interest law firm, told The Epoch Times that if the U.S. decided not to cooperate with WHO on a possible health emergency, and “say you had Trump back in office who wants to pull out, or you have somebody else who doesn’t want to deal with WHO, they could bring it before the International Court at the Hague for fines or some other form of restriction. They could coordinate with their other member nations to take actions with regards to supplies, sharing data or other documentation for trade, and who knows what the consequences of that would be.”

Liberty Counsel also pointed out in a statement on May 12 that a UN report claimed in May 2021 that the pandemic would have been avoided had the international health organization had greater authority.

That report also recommended that WHO be given “an adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits” to nations that don’t cooperate with it.

Source Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/biden-seeks-new-unilateral-powers-who-chief-declare-public-health-emergencies

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Biden Seeks New Unilateral Powers For WHO Chief To Declare Public Health Emergencies appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

This is no joke. The world could be essentially taken over by a “health authority” which would eliminate all self determination. The Bible tells us about a one world Government in the End times. I believe the UN is that beast system to usher in that government. The Amendments that are going to be passed on May 22 is something that you really need to know about! Please watch James Roguski on the Stew Peters Video below for more information.

-Hope Girl

Source Link: https://rumble.com/v13s6q1-single-world-government-ushered-in-by-who-covid-19-emergency-weaponized-to-.html

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post W.H.O. Power Grab : The Real Possibility of one World Government appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.