Militarization of Global Health: WHO IHR Amendments
Rumble | Telegram (9mins)
Moving on to the global implications, the International Health Regulations by the World Health Organization (WHO), which are consolidated with the United Nations, have been updated multiple times. The 2005 update pushed back to individual nation-states, with 196 countries agreeing to the IHR. It requires all countries to have the ability to detect and report and respond to public health events.
Since the pandemic of 2020, they have basically framed up the public health emergency of international national concern (PHEIC). When the Secretary of the WHO declares a public health emergency of international concern, that sets into a legal framework what is supposed to happen at the country level, state for analysis, tracking, isolation, and all of this data has to be tracked at the individual nation-state level and then reported back to the World Health Organization. This was a voluntarily granted international regulation that all 196 countries, including the United States, have agreed to.
One of the most important aspects of IHR 2005 is the requirement that countries detect and report events that may constitute a potential Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
Under 2005 IHR, a PHEIC is declared by the World Health Organization if a situation meets two of the four criteria:
- Is the public health impact of the event serious?
- Is the event unusual or unexpected?
- Is there a significant risk of international spread?
- Is there a significant risk of international traveler trade restrictions?
This is how they’ve now militarized healthcare because they’ve basically said any kind of Public Health Emergency of International Concern has global economic implications, just like coronavirus did in 2020, and so therefore, if there is a significant risk of spread – and if you look at the World Health Organization, they’ll tell you that a disease can spread from a remote village in sub-Saharan Africa to become a global thing within 36 hours – pretty much there’s always a risk of international spread. I don’t care where you are in the world.
And then, is there a significant risk of international travel or trade restrictions? And this is where they bring in, will this have an economic impact on international commerce? And of course, they feel that all of it would.
They also list explicitly SARS, human influenza caused by a new subtype, so that’s your coronavirus. You have your smallpox and other notable events, pneumonic plague, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fever, West Nile. There’s all of these things. And then it says other biological, radiological, or chemical events that meet IHR criteria.
Since IHR was put into place, the WHO has declared the following Public Health Emergencies of International Concern: H1N1, polio, Ebola, Zika, COVID-19, and monkeypox.
So you can start to see the framework internationally that we have basically morphed into a data tracking and analytical framework to send information to the WHO.
Now, the Affordable Care Act in 2010 under Obama actually was bringing in a lot of this international classification of diseases. So the ICD codes basically were created in 1893, and so we’ve tracked these diseases internationally since that time.
- In 1948, the WHO took control of the clinical designations for the International Classification of Diseases.
- In 1955, the WHO modified the ICD-10 to track mortality.
- In 1977, we had been on the ninth revision of the ICD codes, which was ICD-9, and that was used all the way up until 2014 when the ICD code 10 was mandated for medical coding.
And just so you can understand what happened when that happened, they did two things. When we moved from ICD-9 to ICD-10, and this was all a part of Obamacare mandates, they added 68,000 new additional medical codes. Then they added the requirement that medical professionals report the most specific code applicable out of the now total 155,000 medical codes.
So you can see if you’re a medical coder, you should be making six figures every year because just to even understand all 155,000 codes seems crazy; with the requirement that it gets tracked at the most granular level possible.
- Wow this one looks um, horrifying?
… one of the medical codes added was “E978 Legal execution“
- All executions performed at the behest of the judiciary or ruling authority [whether permanent or temporary] as:
- asphyxiation by gas
- beheading, decapitation (by guillotine)
- capital punishment
- other specified means
- injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted
Basically, in 1988, America passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which gave us and pushed us to go along with the international rules, regulations, and coding.
And obviously, the Obamacare Act is how we actually moved to ICD-10. But the point I want you to understand is that between ICD-10 and 2005 International Health Regulations, we are required as a nation-state of the World Health Organization to track these things at the most granular level and report them to the World Health Organization. So that obviously brought medical tracking and analysis up to the global level for the World Health Organization.
But what’s happening right now is a new amendment, mostly written by the Biden Administration, and I’ve talked about this on this podcast. The amendments that are actually being met with right now, as we speak, their second meeting to discuss passing the new amendments to the IHRs.
This is a Brownstone Institute article of what is happening with these major amendments, and I would just summarize by telling you that basically, it is outsourcing the national sovereignty to deal with health crises in your own individualized country-specific way to the World Health Organization.
And this is a legally binding agreement. In other words, the World Health Organization will assess public health emergencies of international concern, decide how the right protocols are to be, push those down to the nation-states, and the nation-states have agreed, under the terms of the new IHRs, to follow those protocols without the ability to modify them.
The Brownstone Institute says that:
The amendments to the IHRs are intended to fundamentally change the relationship between individuals, their country governments, and the World Health Organization (WHO). They place the WHO as having rights overriding that of individuals, erasing the basic principles developed after World War II regarding human rights and the sovereignty of states. In doing so, they signal a return to a colonial, feudal approach fundamentally different from that which people in relatively democratic countries have been accustomed to.
Powers to be ceded by national governments to the DG include quite specific examples that may require changes within national legal systems. These include detention of individuals, restriction of travel, the forcing of health interventions (testing, inoculation) and requirement to undergo medical examinations.
The lack of major pushback by not only politicians but the lack of concern in the media and consequent ignorance of the general public that this is happening is actually one of the strange and alarming aspects of the amendments involving the largest changes of the workings of society and national regulations.
Annotated extracts from the World Health Organization's document provided on the WHO website is currently in the process, like I said, they are literally meaning their second meeting is happening as we speak right now, regarding getting these regulations passed.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights agreed by the United Nations after the aftermath of World War II and in the context of much of the world emerging from a colonial yoke, the concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed upon by the United Nations after World War II, is predicated on the idea that all humans are born with equal and inalienable rights, gained simply by being born. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was intended to codify these rights and prevent a return to inequality and totalitarian rule.
This is a huge issue as it represents the final globalization of healthcare, and it is not being covered because there is a global consortium focused on the monetization and weaponization of healthcare at the international level.