Consultation opens on proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)
We have not been informed. We have not been asked. The document is out of date.
Submission
Without the agreement of member states, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates.
Aspects of the proposed amendments which New Zealand should acknowledge and oppose:
Threat of a global system for digital ‘health certificates’ as a pre-condition for any cross border travel (307 IHRAs, Articles 18, 23, 31, 35, 36), which could affect numerous human rights.
Threat to the principle of informed consent and the right to access safe and effective medical products, as well as the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent.
Threat to the right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information.
Threat to the right to privacy and data protection.
Background
The World Health Organisation (WHO) wants to seal an agreement with its member states at the World Health Assembly (the WHO’s decision-making body), which convenes on 27 May 2024.
The WHO is setting itself up as the global health authority, requiring member states to implement its legally binding regulations.
The legal framework that is being negotiated includes:
changing WHO emergency guidance from advisory to legally binding
seeking to increase censorship of disagreeing voices.
empowering the WHO’s unelected director-general to declare a public health emergency of international concern.
Option 15.B in its draft document reads: ‘Recognising the central role of WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, and mindful of the need for coordination with regional organisations, entities in the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organisations, the WHO Director-General shall determine whether to declare a pandemic.’
The World Health Organisation is an unelected bureaucracy with several irons in the fire that will impact our lives:
Amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), an instrument of international law that will be legally-binding on 194 member states.
A pandemic treaty. New Zealand must uphold a treaty if the government has ensured it is law in New Zealand.
Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats, which includes ‘a global implementation roadmap’.
Health Emergency Preparedness Response and Resilience.
A Global Digital Health Certification Network, that builds upon the experience of networks for COVID-19 certificates.
In its determined bid for global authority, the WHO found it necessary to delete its former policy commitment for “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”.
New Zealand’s net contributions payable to the WHO, for 2022- 2023, totals US$2,784,750. At the WHO’s 154th Executive Board meeting this month, countries approved a proposal by the WHO Secretariat that will enable the WHO to raise nearly US $7billion to fund its budget for the period 2025-2028.
The document we are asked to consider is already out of date. It is the responsibility of the government to enforce Article 55. (Article 55 of the International Health Organization clearly states that the director-general shall communicate any proposed amendments at least four months in advance of the World Health Assembly at which they are to be considered.)
There is widespread concern, around the world, about the safety of the COVID vaccines that the WHO continues to push, in its advisory capacity.
It is established that COVID-19 vaccines can cause death. Causality in excess mortality has been amply demonstrated. The WHO fails to address increasing concerns about excess deaths, especially in young people or even acknowledge vaccine injury as an outcome of the COVID pandemic management advice it gave to its member states.
Authors of a recent paper conclude: “Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.” - COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign | Article
A US congressional panel heard that COVID-19 vaccination continues to cause record injuries, disabilities, and deaths.
The WHO does not address the origin of the COVID virus.
There is no meaningful public awareness about the WHO proposals for control . It should be noted that an inquiry into the management of the COVID pandemic is still to be held.
The WHO works closely with the World Economic Forum. WEF founder Klaus Schwab boasted of penetrating the cabinets of governments such as Canada, France and Germany, through its Young Global Leaders programme.
We need assurance that our new coalition government has not been ‘penetrated’.
(It should be noted that New Zealand’s Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who was the chief executive of New Zealand’s health ministry during the pandemic, under former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern - a Young Global Leader - now co-chairs the WHO’s Working Group on Amendments to the IHR.)
Article 18 of the proposed amendments relates to recommendations issued by WHO with respect to persons.
They may:
require medical examinations,
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis,
require vaccination or other prophylaxis,
place suspect persons under public health observation,
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons,
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons, implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons,
refuse entry of suspect and affected persons, refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas and
implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas
The principles of informed consent and the right to access safe and effective medical products, and the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation are compromised by the measures being developed by the WHO. This concern has been conveyed to both the Attorney General and the Human Rights Commissioner in a letter signed by concerned New Zealand citizens. The proposed WHO dictates will also breach the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights, which sets out what patients can expect when they use a health or disability service in New Zealand.
Informed Consent: Helping patients make informed decisions about their care
WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has said repeatedly that the WHO initiative will not affect national sovereignty He blames a slowing down of the WHO’s negotiation process on “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. In fact, if our representatives do not reject the WHO’s pandemic treaties and amended health regulations, it will mean:
we are bound without reservation to significant WHO obligations
we will forfeit the right to make decisions as a country with respect to “all risks with a potential to impact public health”. That could stretch to climate and husbandry, under its One Health initiative.
we will be required to amend and implement domestic legislation in accordance with the new treaties.
The WHO is largely privately-funded. The entities with which WHO engages in partnerships include philanthropic foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. The government should examine the WHO’s independence and discuss how its instruments will impact the laws of New Zealand as well as human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications.
The Māori Health Authority has registered concerns about the limited time frames under IHRAs Article 59.
The Māori self-governing body, Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu o Nu Tireni, issued a rahui (prohibition) on mRNA BioNTech Medical Gene Therapy and all derivatives, to apply from 17 October 2023 until further notice: “Due to concerns that Māori as the native tribal people of New Zealand and other Pacific Islanders were disproportionately targeted for vaccination and including all New Zealanders affected and being aware of the mounting evidence and expert opinion that the mRNA technologies promoted as ‘safe and effective’ vaccines are injurious to human life, a rahui has been placed on the importation, sale and use of the mRNA BioNTech medical technology and all derivatives.”
The WHO’s push for global health governance depends on unelected and largely anonymous delegates from member states. They play a deciding role in giving the WHO control of health measures, digitalisation of health documents, compliance and implementation. New Zealand’s representatives are participating in negotiations in both the treaty and amended international health regulations. NZ’s representatives at the WHO’s executive board meeting in January 2024 were listed as Mr N Glassey (deputy permanent representative, Geneva) and Ms C van Bohemen Hunter (health policy adviser, permanent mission, Geneva).
According to Linked In: Ms C van Bohemen Hunter is credited with a ‘Master of Science degree in Gender and International Relations’. She is the author (2015 -2016) Dissertation: ‘Mixing Oil and Water? Integrating gender and neoliberalism at the IMF’.
Mr N Glassey had a Master of Science degree. He is New Zealand’s deputy permanent representative and Consul General in Switzerland, working for the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He also represents New Zealand at the United Nations in Geneva.
These two representatives are unelected officials, holding significant power. We don’t know where they stand and what their brief is.. We don’t know what expertise they have to enable them to make decisions for us about vaccine mandates, lockdowns, quarantines, vaccine passports, masking, even climate change and husbandry.
How do they view the WHO’s pandemic policies during the past three years and its continued blindness to COVID-19 vaccine induced cardiac arrests and other serious adverse side effects?
If our unelected representatives, such as Ms C van Bohemen Hunter, give the nod to the WHO’s plans, New Zealand will have “undertaken” to follow all future recommendations (Article 1, new art. 13A) from the WHO director- general. The WHO will have power to label opinions or information it does not like as ‘mis-information or disinformation’.
The government of Aotearoa New Zealand and its representatives at the World Health Assembly should reject both the WHO package of International Health
Regulations amendments and the proposed WHO CA+ treaty.
The New Zealand government should enact legislation that will enable it to exit the WHO.
In conclusion, I concur with former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organisation David Bell, who wrote: “No rational democracy would countenance outsourcing its governance to others. Enthusiasm for such an institution could only come from national leaders who are working for other interests, or capable of being coerced.”
Notes:
The WGIHR will present its final text to the World Health Assembly in May 2024 for consideration. If passed, requiring agreement of just 50 per cent of those present, member states will have 10 months to reject, after which it will come into force for non-rejecting states two months later.
If submitted for a vote, their adoption requires a simple majority of the 194 World Health Assembly states’ representatives present and voting. Alternatively, a committee of the Assembly may be tasked to negotiate and reach a consensus.
The amendments are designed to be complementary and compatible with the WHO treaty, (WHO CA+) that will also be considered at the World Health Assembly in May 2024.
The WHO’s Executive Board gives effect to the decisions and policies of the World Health Assembly. The WHO is headed by the director-general, who is appointed by the World Health Assembly on the nomination of the Executive Board.
Entities with which WHO engages include the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
New Zealand’s relationship with the WHO is led by a global health group at Manatū Hauora. The team is led by group manager Salli Davidson and manager Lucy Cassels.
At the World Health Assembly, the delegate charged with voting New Zealand positions for technical health matters is the head of delegation or their alternate. For geopolitical and foreign policy issues, voting is undertaken by senior staff from the New Zealand permanent mission to the United Nations in Geneva, either the ambassador or deputy ambassador.
On a WHO web page NZ delegates were listed as follows:
Chief Delegate Professor D. Sarfati Director-General of Health, Ministry of Health
Deputy Chief Delegate Ms A.L. Duncan Ambassador, Permanent Representative Geneva
Delegate Dr A. Old Head, Public Health Agency and Deputy Director-General, Ministry of Health
Alternate Mr S. Waldegrave Associate Deputy Director-General of Health (Policy) Ministry of Health
Ms L. Hetaraka Chief Nursing Officer, Ministry of Health
Mr N. Glassey Deputy Permanent Representative, Geneva
Ms H.L. Cassels Manager Global Health, Ministry of Health
Ms C. Van Bohemen Hunter Health Attaché, Permanent Mission, Geneva
Ms N. Maarleveld Senior Advisor, Global Health, Ministry of Health
A new WHO treaty was a key recommendation of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response co-chaired by New Zealand’s Helen Clark in 2021.
An extended National Interest Analysis will be presented to the government’s cabinet when negotiations for both instruments have concluded and approval is sought to become party to the Pandemic Treaty and amended IHR.
The World Health Assembly is an annual conference of governments, focused on technical and global health policy issues.
Each year, New Zealand positions are prepared by the Ministry of Health in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. These are approved by the director-general of Health.
The issues to be decided at this assembly have not been discussed in Parliament.
At the World Health Assembly, the delegate charged with voting New Zealand positions for technical health matters is the head of delegation or their alternate. For geopolitical and foreign policy issues, voting is undertaken by senior staff from the New Zealand permanent mission to the United Nations in Geneva, either the ambassador or deputy ambassador.
The Royal Commission is due to present its report in September 2024. There will be no public hearings and no in-person meetings for members of the public. The inquiry excludes vaccine safety in its terms of reference.
Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse sounds an international warning that the WHO’s strong pressure to extend its powers and its structural and financial capacities, ‘will have permanent effect over the sovereignty of countries and over the self-determination of their people’: “Its reform process will bring significant changes to every human being and all 194 member states”.
Under the proposals being drafted, the WHO will become the world’s health authority. Countries will undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations and WHO measures ‘shall’ be initiated and completed without delay by all state parties.
If New Zealand falls in line, officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties. New Zealand will be able to claim that WHO directives left them with no choice and that will absolve them from accountability.
Under the proposed WHO CA+ draft agreement, countries will commit to censoring what the WHO deems to be false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.
Sources
(PDF) COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere
https:Japanese-officials-urge-government-to-tell-truth-about-excess-deaths-after-.html the
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-uns-new-political-declaration-on-pandemics/ https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-the-un-and-the-reality-of-human-greed/
AN/ OVERVIEW OF THE WHO NEGOTIATIONS
A big promise from the Ministry, while parents await a High Court decision
Medsafe’s approval of the vaccine rollout for kids is challenged in the High Court
European Parliament - expert panel
https://christineanderson.eu/en/video/health-democracy-expert-hearing-in-the-eu-parliament-part-1-3/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/03/changing-face-leadership/