“Our goal is clear: a modern WHO, working seamlessly to make a measurable difference in people’s health at country level.”
— Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, Executive Board, January 2018
The World Health Organization (“WHO”) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (“UN”) established in 1948 to be responsible for “international public health.” It consists of 194 Member States that elect the Director-General and is powered by 8,000+ professionals and “leading public health experts,” such as doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, and “managers,” who collect and analyze data, “structure and coordinate the World’s response to health emergencies, promote well-being, prevent disease, and expand access to health care.” The WHO also partners with world leaders, international organizations, foundations, non-state actors, researchers and health workers that allow it “to deliver life-saving vaccines and supplies, raise funds for the Triple Billion Targets, establish consensus among leading scientists, and much more… in order to achieve health and safety for all.”
In mid-2017, however, WHO embarked on what has become “the most ambitious and far-reaching transformation of the WHO since [the] organization was established over 70 years ago” to “make a measurable difference in people’s health at country level.” The Transformation is being rolled out in 4 phases, designed around 3 strategic objectives:
- Establishing and operationalizing an impact-focused, data-driven strategy and a new results-focused, collaborative culture;
- Delivering its mission and strategy via “best-in-class” processes and an aligned, 3-level operating model; and
- Leveraging partners and the global community to drive health outcomes, including through new partnership and resource mobilization initiatives.
WHY DO WE NEED TO EXIT THE WHO?
Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) are currently being discussed at the WHO. More than 300 amendments proposed by 16 states (some on behalf of regional groups and organisations), were collated by the WHO in the ‘Article-by-Article Compilation’ (AbAC) in November 2022. They have been reviewed by the Review Committee Regarding Amendments to the International Health Regulations (RC) which, in accordance with its mandate under Decision WHA.75(9), has issued technical recommendations on these amendments in a report (RC Report) published on 6 February 2023 for consideration by the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR). Between May 21 and 28, 2023, the World Health Assembly is meeting in Geneva, Switzerland to vote on the adoption of our very own “President’s” proposed amendments to the IHR. If passed, the Amendments will give the World Health Organization “global governance,” or the power to
- Declare pandemics,
- Implement forced vaccinations,
- Digital ID,
- Forced quarantines,
- Contact tracing,
- Among other things.
According to Children’s Health Defense, the WHO and UN are in the midst of attempting an “unprecedented global takeover of public health” by considering (1) amending the IHR and (2) drafting a “Pandemic Treaty” titled “WHO CA+.” that, together, would create the legal framework for the WHO to declare public health emergencies at-will, then manage global public health in response, while also giving the WHO authority over pandemic preparedness, including extensive surveillance of people and animals to “identify outbreaks early.” In other words, these documents would allow the WHO to act “as the single authority for infectious disease mitigation, prevention and treatment protocols for anything they deem a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).”
“[A]nnointed with complete control of the public health response worldwide,” the WHO Director-General would become the world’s unchecked “medical czar,” who could censor opposing viewpoints, cut off objecting or non-compliant nations or residents, implement forced lockdowns, vaccinations and other “safety measures” utilizing UN troops, among other things.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
Congressman Andrew Biggs has proposed HR 79, “The WHO Withdrawal Act,” to pull the United States out of the WHO and maintain sovereignty over our healthcare. The Bill would (1) require the President to immediately withdraw the U.S. from the WHO, (2) prohibit using any federal funds to provide for U.S. participation in the WHO, and (3) repeal the 1947 Act authorizing the U.S. to join the WHO. We need to highlight his – and other congressional representatives’ efforts – to defund, derail, and, at the very least, exit the WHO. Here is what you can do NOW to #ExitTheWho:
- Call, write + visit your congressional representatives, as well as Speaker Kevin McCarthy, to urge McCarthy to cut off U.S. funding to the WHO.
- Sign the “American Sovereignty Declaration,” which will send a letter to your congressional representatives asking that the representative support exiting the WHO.
- Call, write + visit your congressional representatives to ask them to support Rep. Andy Biggs’s (R-AZ5) HR 79, “The WHO Withdrawal Act” in order to preserve U.S. sovereignty.
- The Act is worth the read.
- Contact Brandon to demand that he stop negotiations to amend and reject Amendment 59 to the 2005 “International Health Regulations,” in order to protect U.S. sovereignty and not hand over our nation’s public health to the WHO.
- Sign the “Health Freedom Bill of Rights.”
- Attend a “GLOBAL WALKOUT: EXIT THE WHO” rally near you TOMORROW, May 20, 2023.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE AMENDMENTS PASS?
According the the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law and have the force of federal legislation, if approved by 2/3 majority of the Senate.
The Senate does not ratify treaties. It either approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. In recent decades, however, U.S. presidents have frequently entered into “international agreements” without the advice and consent of the Senate. These “executive agreements” are still binding on the parties under international law. For this reason, we encourage you to engage with your representatives and the Resident, now, to prevent any “international agreement” from being entered circumventing the check from the Senate – and constitutional protections – or to prepare them to reject ratification of any global agreements involving the U.S. and WHO.
To @petermcculloughmd + @alisonsragepage @oanntv for sounding the 🚨 on this.
R I S E U P + O U T ✊🏽🌎
- Dr. McCullough x Alison OAN Interview