Did you know amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) were ADOPTED on May 27th, 2022 at the World Health Assembly (WHA), which is the decision making body of the World Health Organisation?
What are these amendments?
These amendments cut the time period for opting out of future adopted amendments from 18 months to 10 months. And the time period for implementing them from 24 months to 12 months. In other words, future amendments will be rammed through in half the time.
You might think—What's the problem? These amendments aren't too bad. However, they may appear minor, but they do have significant ramifications.
This article focuses on these changes as they are of immediate concern. Immediate action is required.
Are our leaders aware of these amendments and the authority they have to reject them? With their focus on the elections etc., have they given these amendments much thought? Have they considered the consequences of doing nothing?
Opting Out
After amendments are adopted, there is an 18 month period in which individual nations can opt out. This gives nations time to review them. Are these amendments necessary? What useful purpose, if any, do they fulfil? Who benefits from them? What hardships will they impose? What are their pitfalls? And so on.
The Time to Reject the 2022 Adopted Amendments is NOW.
Are our new leaders aware the 18 months rejection period is nearly up? Do they realize we’re almost out of time!
The Ministry of Health is aware and propose NOT to reject them. A recent information release states: 'This Cabinet paper proposes that New Zealand be bound by the minor administrative amendments adopted by the 2022 World Health Assembly'
Acceptance is based on doing nothing. And according to that recent information release, the reject-by date is valid until December 1st 2023.
If leaders around the world do not state their objections in writing, these amendments will automatically enter into force. Since NZ has just had an election, who can object? From the New Zealand Parliament website:
The Government continues in caretaker mode until Ministers are formally appointed. The outgoing government should undertake no new policy initiatives, and should act on the advice of the incoming government on any significant constitutional, economic or other issue that cannot be delayed until the new government formally takes office – even if the outgoing government disagrees with the course of action proposed.
Therefore, Christopher Luxon's silence will = NZ’s Consent.
What are the ramifications of NOT rejecting these shortened-time-frame amendments?
1. A shortened time frame to review a whopping 307 proposed amendments.
There are 307 proposed amendments currently in the pipeline. These are scheduled to be considered for adoption during the 77th WHA, i.e. from May 27 to June 1, 2024.
If these are adopted, nations will have only 10 months to opt out of these. See previous articles here and here for more information about these proposed amendments. UK MP Andrew Bridgen recently gave a powerful speech in parliament on what we stand to lose if we’re not careful—does NZ need legislation to protect our democracy?
Ten months is hardly enough time to review this huge number of amendments in detail, to test the waters, and to do what should be done in a democracy—to engage the public, to encourage public scrutiny and debate.
Although democracies are not perfect, the alternatives, (totalitarianism, socialism, communism, fascism) are far, far worse. Democracies harness the wisdom and creativity of the people. When this is stifled, societies regress.
According to these recently released documents from the Minister of Health, NZ does reserve the right to opt out of future amendments if lack of time does become an issue. But action is required. Haste to avoid official action could have an effect on decision making. With 307 amendments to review, lack of time will obviously be an issue unless NO democratic processes are intended.
According to the recently released documents, these minor amendments need not be presented for parliamentary treaty examination or for public consultation. As for future amendments, consultation with the public will depend on the scope and contents of the amendments... as well as the time available.
We will only get a chance to have a say if time permits.
That is arrogant. Public input is valuable and necessary; therefore, these time restraints should be rejected. Public input helps avoid mistakes and helps make for better legislation. Don’t we still live in a democracy? I’d like to have a say in what could dramatically affect my well-being.
Some of these 307 amendments were submitted by communist/undemocratic countries/people and are totalitarian in nature and do not respect the rights of the individual—a 'for the greater good' stance is often used by totalitarian-style leaders as an excuse to trample on individual rights and to perform atrocious, inhumane acts on individuals, such as forced vaccination and experimentation.
The large lot of 307 amendments could have an enormous impact on all our lives—they will have a huge impact on our freedom of choice as individuals and as a nation. Not allowing ample time for government and public scrutiny is undemocratic and reckless.
2. Much less time for unexpected occurrences.
For instance, the WHO’s Working Group for the proposed IHR Amendments (WGIHR), of which NZ’s Ashley Bloomfield is the co-chair, concede the 300 plus proposed amendments will not be ready in January, i.e. four months prior to the next WHA. The rules say member nations are meant to have at least four months prior to the WHA to consider any amendments. Is the WHO attempting to break their own rules? Yes they are!
If the WHO gets their way, nations will not have any time to consider these documents before the WHA in May 2024. And that together with a shortened rejection period will mean an extremely reduced time for honest and open debate within and outside of parliament.
As the current available version of the proposed amendments are extremely dictatorship-like, they support the control every dictator dreams of having over the world. How can our leaders be sure these powers will not be abused? Tedros Ghebreyesus, the WHO's Director General, declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern after five people in the whole world died of Monkeypox. The WHO is an unelected and unaccountable body. They will be able to dictate what we must do without their bearing any culpability if things go wrong.
3. The much-needed, comprehensive, public inquiry into our Covid 19 response needs a good deal of time to be completed properly.
No decisions on the 307 proposed amendments should be made until the inquiry has been completed. Otherwise, our leaders will likely be basing their decisions on faulty data—a recipe for disaster.
Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to reject the shortened time-frames and proceed with an extensive public inquiry into the Covid Response.
Also, as the WHO has failed to do a thorough investigation/evaluation into their Covid 19 responses, we cannot turn to them for reliable guidance.
Only the stupid, the careless, the control freaks, or the wilfully blind would lock our freeland into the dictates of the Director General of the WHO before an inquiry is complete so informed, fact-based, scientific, and ethical decisions can be made.
4. Increases the risk of NOT rejecting potentially harmful amendments.
What are the health benefits of shortening the time period? NONE! But it does shorten the time in which people around the world can discuss and debate future amendments.
This shortened time frame dramatically increases the risk that potentially harmful amendments will come into force due to a lack of time to harness the wisdom of the people and to analyze properly the growing number of studies that show the harmfulness that vaccine passports, mandated vaccines, poorly-tested vaccines (i.e. boosters were tested on just a few mice), lockdowns, and masks inflicted on society.
On many occasions, the highly skilled, the highly educated, the highly experienced, and the highly trained so-called 'anti-vaxxers', 'conspiracy theorists', and 'misinformation spreaders' have been more accurate, more advanced in their thinking and a more reliable source of information than the WHO.
I believe the WHO and their partners are more aligned to promoting vaccines and drugs that make their major donors truckloads of money than to the health of the general public. Is the WHO wilfully blind? The Cleveland Study showed the more vaccines you had, the more Covid you got. In a non-corrupt system, this would be headline news.
Listen to this recent short video on International Excess Deaths. In the latter half, a top UK oncologist with incredible credentials shares his growing concern of the emergence of aggressive cancers amongst his boostered patients. He maintains there are too many to be 'coincidences'.
Guy Hatchard, in this article, after referring to a new paper that should alarm our newly elected politicians and galvanize them into responsible action says:
I would like to think that by now there are successful people of means and influence, deep thinkers, politicians from all parties and media personalities who have reached the conclusion that we took a wrong turn on pandemic health policy formation. People who wish to contribute to its correction. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this.
Summary / Conclusion
Surely any reasonably thinking, democratic leader would say NO to any shortening of the opt-out period to allow for unexpected circumstances, such as the WHO breaking their own rules, and to allow for the huge number of amendments in the pipeline, many of which take away our freedoms, including our freedom of choice as individuals and as a nation. As the saying goes, Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
And also because NO extensive, public inquiry has been completed to see what worked and what didn't. People were clearly injured and killed by the vaccine—the dispute lies with how many.
The incoming government would be wise to say NO, we will not be rushed. After all, what are the advantages of adopting a shortened time frame. NONE! Where is the logic or evidence that these amendments will be beneficial? After all, we can voluntarily implement these amendments at any time if deemed necessary.
However; if we say NO, we will have more time to identify problems surrounding the 307 amendments. Surely that is a good thing? Why would we want to be governed by unnecessary and unreasonable shortened time restraints?
The obvious, the safest, the smartest, and immediate thing to do is to reject the IHR amendments that were adopted on 27th May, 2022. This needs to be done before December 1st, 2023.
What You Can Do
Write to our leaders and MPs, such as Christopher Luxon (National), David Seymour (Act) and Winston Peters (NZ First). Find contacts here and for NZ First here.
Share this information as much as you can. The more aware people are, the more likely the 2022 adopted amendments will be rejected.
Share any ideas you have and encourage people to listen to Reality Check Radio as they cover issues MSM don’t, such as the IHR.
Additional Information & References
Katie Ashby-Koppen, a legal for Voices for Freedom, talks on RCR about the IHR Amendments. Listen here. The topic starts at around 29 minutes. She has also written an article on the WHO and what they're up to. Under Subheading 7, she writes about Article 59—the shortened time frames. See here.
A great short and to-the-point article by Dr Meryl Nass: What Countries Can do Right Now to Slow Down the WHO’s Global Coup. Dr Nass is the founder of Door to Freedom a great site to subscribe to—identifies threats to our freedoms and ways to push back.
An informative article on the recently released documents from the Minister of Health by Keri Molloy, a former journalist.
James Roguski: Listen to or read his open letter to World Leaders here.