Now, we’ve looked at some reports about the debate in the UK Parliament about this new World Health Organization. Some people are calling it treaty, technically it’s called the pandemic accord, and we’ll just look at where we’re getting this from because there are some people that are really quite concerned about this. I’m not going to tell you to be concerned or not I’m going to be giving some information and you can decide, but these are the sources that are all directly from the World Health Organization. So there’s that one intergovernmental and negotiating body. There’s this one working group on amendments to the international health regulations.
Now, there’s two things going on at the same time here. So it is a bit confusing and let’s hope one’s not being used as a distraction for the other because I think we need to look at both of them. This is the working group on the international health regulations, updating the regulations from 2005 and all the regulations are there. You can download the full report which to be fair, is open and transparent. You can you can see it and study it for yourself.
Now let me just give you a bit of background here to what’s going on. So this is from the WHO site.
Countries around the world are currently working on negotiating and or amending two international instruments. Now, the first question here is why they’re doing two at the same time because this is causing confusion. Pity they haven’t done one at a time which will help the world to be better prepared when the next event with pandemic potential strikes, but as we’ll see it’s more than pandemics that they’re going to be talking about.
But at the same time going on apparently concurrently. We’ve got this other thing:
Now this is the 2005 regulation that they’re amending – 66 articles in the 2005 accord, to amend the current International Health Regulations (2005)
So it’s quite detailed really, and I wanted to find out if these MPs concerns were justified and we’ll look at it now.
Underlined and bold = proposal to add text
Strikethrough = proposal to delete existing text
Article 1 Definitions
- “standing recommendation” means
non-binding advice issued by WHO
- “temporary recommendation” means
non-binding advice issued by WHO
Standing recommendations means non binding advice. So non binding will come out, and by it’s so presumably the non binding comes out that means it’s binding on governments.
Temporary recommendations means non binding again non binding will come out. So temporary recommendations means advice issued by the WHO. The non binding is taken out. Implying that it’s well, what can we say? We can say well it’s now the non binding bits coming out. So does that mean it’s binding? We would assume so. That’s the interpretation of quite a few of the MPs we’ve looked at.
Article 2 Scope and purpose
- including through health systems readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to
public health risk all risks with a potential to impact public health,
So remember in bold it’s new.
Including through health systems, readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk. So the point here is this is coming out the public health risk is coming out. So that means they can do this for any risk – all risk. So it’s now all risk with the potential impact on public health. So public health taken out, it’s now all risk. So this is the part that’s due to go in.
So the World Health Organization could do this for other things in its great esteemed wisdom, it considers a risk – not just public health things anymore. So pretty significant expansion of their reach there just in a few things we’ve looked at already.
Article 3 Principles
- The implementation of these Regulations shall be
with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons
Now this is article three and again the implementation of these regulations shall be with the full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons. This is coming out. This is proposed to come out. Now what is wrong with regulations with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamentals freedoms of the person? I don’t know but that is now out.
So let’s just clarify this. The World Health Organization are taking out the clause which says that the regulation should be applied essentially with full respect for the dignity human rights and fundamentals of freedoms of the person. That is now out. That is really, yeah that bit is out. That is quite, that’s quite concerning. So make sure that bits crossed out because they want to take that bit out. Do check it out for yourself. Make sure I’ve got this right.
Article 4 Responsible authorities
- each State Party should inform WHO about the establishment of its National Competent Authority responsible for overall implementation of the IHR that will be recognized and held accountable
Responsible authorities. Right. So this is new: “each state party should inform WHR about the establishment of its national competent authority responsible for the overall implementations of the international health regulations that will be recognized and held accountable“.
So the WHO here appears to want national bodies setup to enforce their dictates or whatever you want to call it.
Remember the non-binding bit is now taken out.
So I’m starting to see why these MPs are a bit concerned about this.
Article 5 Surveillance
- the State Party may request a further extension not exceeding two years from the Director-General, who shall
make the decision refer the issue to World Health Assembly which will then take a decision on the same
- WHO shall collect information regarding events through its surveillance activities
Article five. The state party may request a further extension not exceeding two years from the director general, who shall make the decision. So that bit’s coming out. So make the decision refer the issue to the World Health Assembly which will then take a decision on the same.
So yeah, again, just subtle bits being taken out here, that can change the meaning of things.
This bit is going in because it’s in bold WHO shall collect information regarding events through its surveillance activities.
So it seems to me that here that the World Health Organization wants to collect the information and basically collect that information itself. Again you get the impression it’s a centralization of power issue to the World Health Organization.
Anyway let’s go on.
Article 6 Notification
- No sharing of genetic sequence data or information shall be required under these Regulations.
No sharing of genetic sequence data or information shall be required under these regulations. Well that’s really quite strange. I would have thought we would want to share genetic information about any new virus or bacterial or fungal infection or whatever it is, but of course they’re now saying that this is not just public health issues. This is any issues that the WHO deemed to be a concern. What that could be isn’t specified. They’ve just broadened this out. Broadened their reach out.
Article 9: Other Reports
Before taking any action based on such reports, WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring
Article 9 under the heading Other Reports. Before taking any action based on such reports, WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. That’s out. They’re proposing to take that bit out.
So why on earth wouldn’t you want to consult with member states? I don’t know but it looks like the World Health Organization want to cut out the member state and just do this on their own bat. So that bit is coming out. Again, WHO firmly in charge.
Article 10 Verification
- whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO,
taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.
Article 10 Verification. Whilst encouraging the state party to accept the offer of collaboration by the WHO, taking into account the views of such state party concerned. Well, that’s coming out, it looks like the WHO don’t need to take into account the views of the individual state.
Do check on the sites I’ve given you. This is what I’m reading. If I’ve got it completely wrong, tell me, but this is what they’re saying.
Article 11 Exchange of information
- WHO shall facilitate the exchange of information between States Parties and ensure that the Event Information Site For National IHR Focal Points offers a secure and reliable platform
Exchange of information. Very concerned about information control, of course, and we’re going up to Article 11, which is all I’m going to do in this video.
Again, this is new: WHO shall facilitate the exchange of information.
So it’s the World Health Organization now facilitating the exchange of information. So it looks like the exchange is all going through the good offices of the World Health Organization. So they can decide what’s best for you in rural Texas or wherever the heck you are. The World Health Organization knows best about your situation. Is that what they’re saying here? It looks like it to me.
They’re going to facilitate the exchange of information between state parties and ensure that the event information site from the National IHR Focal Points, offers a secure and reliable platform.
It’s going to be secure and reliable. Reliable presumably according to the good dictates of the WHO. There you go, and our role is to say thank you. So nation states or individual experts are irrelevant.
- Parties referred to in those provisions, shall
not make this information generally available to other States Parties, until such time as when:
- (e) WHO determines it is necessary that such information be made available to other States Parties to make informed, timely risk assessments.
Parties referred to in those provisions shall, and again, one of these subtle changes shall not make this information generally available to other state parties.
So it did say parties referred to in those provisions shall make this information generally available to other state parties.
Now it’s saying it shall not.
(John misquoted this when he read it out, it’s the opposite of what he said. It used to say “shall not make this information generally available” but “not” is the word being crossed out, so it’s actually, “shall make this information generally available“)
Looks like you’ve got to go through the WHO. So it looks like the WHO here are saying, as I see it, we don’t want countries talking to countries. Go through the WHO. We know best. We’ll take care of it all. We don’t want the United Kingdom talking to the United States. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Go through the World Health Organization.
Parties referred to in those provisions shall make this information generally available to other state parties until such times when:
This is the key thing here: When WHO determines it is necessary that such information is made available to state parties.
So the WHO will decide when it’s necessary, because this bit is new.
to make informed timely assessments.
So the WHO is going to decide when information shall be made available to the United Kingdom. So if you’re in the United Kingdom, don’t need to worry about it, the WHO will determine when it’s necessary that such information be made available to us.
I guess all the scientists and doctors in the United Kingdom are a bit stupid. We need guided, we need guided, well I’m not that I’m putting myself in the elite group, but we need guided by the World Health Organization, it would appear.
What words come to mind? paternalistic perhaps? Dictatorial? Controlling?
I’ll stop. I’ve given you a taste of what’s in it. You decide if you like this or not. Check it out for yourself, download the report, there it is, just click download and you get the whole thing. In a range of languages and we will leave it there, thank you for watching.