Did the WHO cheat the “pandemic treaty” through the back door?

The “Aktionsbündnis Freie Schweiz” argues that the adoption of the revised “International Health Regulations” in Geneva late at night on June 1st, 2024 is far more serious than it seems at first glance.

Source: TKP.at, Assoc. Prof. DR. Stephan Sander-Faes, 03 June 2024

Thanks to the tireless efforts of James Roguski – whose “Substack” is highly recommended in any case – everyone has been able to follow the development of the WHO-led negotiations on a so-called “pandemic treaty” and its evil twin, the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (hereafter IHR), in real time, as it were.

As virtually all mainstream reports indicate, a heavily watered-down minimal version of the IHR was adopted last Saturday – although they are technically illegal, null and void, as the revised IHR were published only shortly before the vote and not more than four months before as required (see Article 55(2) of the 2005 IHR; here and below – unless otherwise indicated – you will find my translations of non-German passages):

The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.

Ever since it is clear, and at least since the so-called “Corona Pandemic™” declared by the WHO, that laws and constitutions are not so reliable, we need to talk about the contents of the revised IHR.

I assume that you are aware of the events of last Saturday in Geneva, or at least familiar with them. You can find the official WHO statement here.

But now we turn to the assessment of the “Action Alliance Free Switzerland“, which interprets the events of last Saturday in Geneva quite “differently”.

Changes to the adopted IHR are serious

“ABF Switzerland” was present when the amendments to the International Health Regulations were adopted on the last day of the 77th World Health Assembly. The final version of the IHR has now been critically analysed by the WHO, which identifies the following key points, among others (emphasis in original):

The WHO media release points out that the “pandemic emergency” has now been redefined. According to this definition, a pandemic is “a communicable disease that is geographically widespread in several countries or has a high risk of spreading to several countries. A pandemic that exceeds, or is at high risk of exceeding, the capacity of the health systems in those States; that causes, or is at high risk of causing, significant social and/or economic disruption, including the disruption of international transport and trade. A pandemic that requires rapid, equitable and intensified coordinated international action with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.” (ABF translation, emphasis added by the author).

So if there is already a “high risk”, we have a health emergency that can trigger all further measures provided for in the IHR. So practically always and at any time. The question may now be asked: who determines when a “high risk” exists?

New authorities at state level

States are obliged to create new state authorities to implement the IHR. The IHR refer to “National IHR Authorities”, which are responsible for coordinating the implementation of the IHR, and “National IHR Focal Points”. These contact points must be accessible to the WHO IHR Contact Points at all times. This obliges countries to forward information and data to the WHO on the one hand and to establish permanent crisis teams on the other..

If the states were to point out in this regard that they remain sovereign in the implementation of these national authorities, this would be a concealment of the actual circumstances. After all, the “orders” will come from the WHO once the IHR has been transposed into national law. They are therefore basically national branches of the WHO, but this should not be directly visible.

Redefinition of ‘relevant health products’

So for anyone unfamiliar with the concept of ‘transposition’, I recommend reading up on it by reading my article on how the EU works – just like this.

Also, the devil is not just in these legal details, but literally everywhere, e.g. in the section on ‘relevant health products’, which according to the definitions of the revised IHR,

Healthcare products needed to respond to public health emergencies of international concern, including pandemics, including medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment, decontamination products, ancillary products, antidotes, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies.

Basically everything plus the kitchen sink if the WHO ever declares a “pandemic emergency”.

Here is the commentary from ABF Switzerland:

What may sound plausible and innocuous here is a very significant and critical expansion of the definition of relevant health products. Because in plain language it means that we are being forced to authorise cell and gene-based therapies on ourselves in every health emergency declared by the WHO itself. And here it should be noted that the COVID vaccination, based on mRNA technology, was and still is precisely such a therapy.

But that’s not all, because the entire range of fraudulent, evidence-free measures from the WHO-declared “Corona pandemic™” is still up for discussion. This is particularly evident in the section on travel restrictions, as “ABF Switzerland” emphasises (my emphasis):

The fact that a member state can now also force travellers it deems “dangerous” in terms of their state of health into isolation and quarantine and that (private) transport companies are made the state’s henchman by having to check travellers already on board was already in Article 27 and some other articles of the previous version. However, this possibility has now been tightened up again and it has been specified exactly what the required health documents, more specifically the certificates and QR codes familiar to us from the coronavirus crisis, should look like. It can be assumed that it was the WHO’s wish that these should only be recognised in digital form. However, there were apparently objections to this from the countries of the Global South. At this point, it is important to see through the actual agenda of these articles. It is obviously about being able to restrict international travel at any time (see the sustainability goals of the 2030 Agenda) or limiting it to travellers who undergo the necessary “measures” in advance (vaccination, tests, etc.). In the broadest sense, it could be seen as an indirect vaccination obligation..

Has the “pandemic treaty” been partially integrated into the IHR?

Particular attention should also be paid to Article 13 “Measures in the field of public health, including equitable access to relevant health products”, which has been greatly expanded and at first glance appears (a detailed analysis has yet to be carried out) as if parts of the WHO pandemic agreement have been incorporated here . This is probably because no agreement has yet been reached on the text of the pandemic agreement. For those of us who insist on our self-determination and physical integrity, the WHO p andemic agreement, at least in its latest published version, is of secondary importance and less threatening than the IHR. This is because this treaty is more of a trade agreement for those actors who will bring the aforementioned “relevant health products” onto the market. This shows how imperative it is to keep a close eye on the further development of this agreement.

Preliminary conclusions of AFB Switzerland

The expert opinion commissioned by ABF Switzerland concludes that the amended IHR must be submitted to Parliament, as otherwise Switzerland’s sovereign right will be affected. The reasons for this are set out in the report or in the summary of the report. In order to allow sufficient time for the parliamentary review process, the Federal Council must now declare the opting-out without delay [Art. 13 of the revised IOI contains a clause that provides for a grace period of up to two years for review and implementation purposes, note]. Parliament, which has overall supervision of the Federal Council, must request the latter to make this declaration within the deadline. This is the only way to ensure that the amended IHR are democratically legitimised. This is one of our demands to politicians.

There is nothing to add to this, as it should actually be a matter of course.

Initial assessment and interpretation

The optics and content are very poor, with or without taking into account the “provisional” interpretation of “ABF Switzerland”. Time will tell whether their interpretation is closer to reality than that expressed by the old media and politicians. (My money is on “ABF Switzerland”)

If there is a silver lining, the new bureaucracy that is supposedly being created will lead to endless turf wars, heated debates over its (permanent) funding and, of course, the issue of sinecures at home in the appointment of personnel to these presumably well-paid, mostly tax-exempt de facto “international” positions. This will have the surely unintended consequence that whoever will “work” on the national IHR focal points (or whatever they will be called) will be so compromised in terms of funding, capacity and quality of appointees that major breakdowns are almost certain.

Even if this is not intentional, it will seriously harm many people, especially since – with the affirmation of “equality” (read: socialism) and its evil twin, ideological conformity – what others call “medical Lysenkoism” will harm and/or kill many more people. Whenever the “public” (or private) sector prioritises conformity over competence, sloppiness ensues, often with deadly consequences, as is the case in healthcare. The so-called “Corona pandemic™” declared by the WHO bears impressive witness to this every day.

In addition, the question of whether the obviously incompetent and evidence-free personalities at the WHO, (E)CDC, the EMA and whatever else the alphabet salad agencies are called should be granted even a modicum of “more” expertise and/or authority renders any discussions about a “pandemic agreement” or the revised IHR superfluous. What is particularly astonishing is that incompetence, personal misbehaviour or even the absence of any consequences clearly do not seem to play a role in our society. Not to mention political showmen, “experts™” and “journalists” in the “leading and quality media”.

There is no doubt that what happened in Geneva on Saturday is an abomination, and I fear that the more time passes, the more important the interpretation of “ABF Switzerland” will become. But there is another aspect that deserves attention:

Most man-made, gigantic, multi-dimensional institutions fail, some faster than others, but when they do, it’s not a pretty sight.

During the Great Depression, U.S. President F.D. Roosevelt created many new institutions out of thin air, supposedly because he knew that all new institutions would wither away after a few years. (Via John Flynn’s masterful, if censored, FDR account published in the late 1940s).

A side note on institution building

I have spent the last ten years or so studying the structure and internal changes of administrative agencies in depth; here are some interpretive reflections on that basis.

When a new institution is cobbled together, this inevitably leads to personnel disputes, turf wars, arguments about funding and, of course, the bureaucracy’s perennial accomplice, the change of responsibilities. This is usually done “from above” in the form of directives, which also means that it is a) reversible and b) need not be subject to written and/or logical considerations. Subservience and the extension of what already exists, in addition to the retention of “responsibilities” that once resided in Department A, quickly become the raison d’être of Departments B to Z. There is nothing in history that has not played out in this way.

Generally speaking, human institutions under the conditions of (post) modernity can be divided into two categories: State and private conglomerates, “Big Gov’t” and “Big Biz”, if you will. Both, technically speaking, apply integration mechanisms that differ not in their nature but in their extent: While “Big Gov’t” aims for horizontal integration, Big Biz aims for vertical integration. In other words, the former aims to control different layers of society, human interaction, etc., while the latter seeks to control all aspects of the supply chain.

he WHO sits somewhere “in between” – a “public-private partnership” if ever there was one – and the resulting idiosyncrasies will derail most efforts within a few years, if only because of redundancies, funding and turf wars, and the egos of those who call the shots and those who will supposedly follow them.

Finally, there is the concept of “transposition”. While it technically means the adaptation of national legislation to what comes from outside (here: the IHR), this is usually done by adding extensive wording to laws, regulations, ordinances, etc. This will be the implementation of the revised IHR. This will massively complicate the implementation of the revised IHR, especially if some countries do not want to implement these revisions. In addition, polarisation will increase in view of the resulting legal challenges, especially if there is a repeat of the so-called “Corona Pandemic™” declared by the WHO.

Epilogue

The new IHR are bad, there is no doubt about that.

As long as there is no reappraisal of the “Corona pandemic™” and, above all, its “measures” – with consequences for those responsible – nothing further should be done in this direction.

We should therefore set up special courts for those who are responsible for the so-called “Covid pandemic™” declared by the WHO and its excesses, starting with the WHO director and continuing seamlessly through to the compliant executors at local level.

I am not naïve enough to believe that any of these things will happen in the foreseeable future. However, we must never forget the essential aspect of human agency:

No tyrant has ever been stopped by constantly going along or giving in.

Do not agree. Do not comply

Suggest a correction