Questions About the World Health Organisation Treaty (WHO CA+) and IHR Amendments

Following World Council for Health’s recent report, NZDSOS have a number of questions that we think the New Zealand public should be contemplating with regards to the WHO CA+ and International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments. Let us know what you think.

Twenty Questions on the WHO CA+ and IHR Amendments

Why are we allowing negotiations towards a “Pandemic Treaty” (WHO CA+) and amendments to the IHR to continue before full-fledged post-mortem analyses of the public health response, of the mistakes and of the crimes of the past 3+ years have been conducted?

Why are we allowing negotiations on WHO CA+ and IHR amendments to be conducted before analyzing which measures were effective and which measures actually caused harm and even death?

Why are we allowing negotiations to occur before a full-fledged and conclusive investigation into the origin(s) and cause(s) of COVID-19 has been conducted?

Why are we allowing negotiations to restructure the “global health architecture” before holding officials accountable for the mistakes and crimes that have been committed? No one has been held accountable until everyone has been held accountable.

Please refrain from mindlessly repeating the phrase “prevention, preparedness, response and recovery” without first properly defining those terms. What are the official definitions of the much-repeated terms: “prevention, preparedness, response and recovery?”

What is the goal of the WHO CA+ and IHR amendments negotiations other than a blatant attempt to consolidate and centralize power? How can you possibly negotiate a meaningful and effective agreement when the words that are being used to define the negotiation’s fundamental goal are not clearly defined?

Who are the members of our delegation to the WHO that are purporting to speak for our nation and our people? Why are they unknown, unaccessible and unaccountable?

Are the negotiators knowledgeable about health? Have they ever treated people who are ill? Do they know anything at all about health? Do they have any conflicts of interest? Who is this NZ delegate?

Why are we allowing the vast majority of these negotiations to be conducted in secret?

The preamble of the WHO Constitution states that “active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.” Why are you allowing the WHO to ignore the crystal clear will of the people?

Why are we allowing the unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown delegates to the WHO to be involved in negotiations regarding the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” (WHO CA+) or amendments to the IHR while ignoring the will of the people and by neglecting public input or comment?

On 12-13 April 2022, 33,884 people submitted written public comments to the WHO. The overwhelming majority (99+%) of these comments were opposed to the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” (WHO CA+). The WHO clearly ignored those comments. Their immediate response was to cancel the second round of public comments that had been scheduled for mid June, 2022. Why are you unable to comprehend that we do NOT want a global pandemic treaty or amendments to the IHR to be negotiated?

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body of the WHO CA+ has a list of nearly 400 “relevant stakeholders” who have had a seat at the negotiating table. Why are regular people not considered to be “relevant?” Why do we not have a seat at the negotiating table?

On 9-16 September, the WHO accepted public comment in video format. Hundreds of people from around the world submitted their videos, and these videos have been ignored. “Relevant stakeholders” also submitted their comments. The disparity in opinion was crystal clear. Universally, the “relevant stakeholders” supported the treaty while the people of the world opposed it. Click here to review the videos submitted by people around the world.

No process for accepting public comment seems to have been made available. How can people contact their nation’s delegates in order to express our position on this matter?

What does preparedness actually mean? On 21 September 2022, at the first Informal Focused Conference, a panel of experts clearly admitted that the “metrics” that they had been using to determine whether or not a nation was “prepared” for a future emergency had been shown to be useless. What metrics are being used to determine what constitutes preparedness?

Why have we not investigated the violations of human rights by overzealous officials who overstepped their lawful authority over the last 3+ years?

Do you really think that giving the WHO additional funding and legally-binding authority will help prevent the next “pandemic situation?” Isn’t building an entire industry that is reliant on never-ending crises far more likely to result in a never-ending series of “pandemic situations?” The more profitable pandemics become, the more likely they are to be declared.

Why are we allowing the focus to be placed upon the “equity of access to pandemic response products” rather than investigating the divergent disparity and lack of “equity in health outcomes?”

Why are we allowing the data on the WHO’s website to be ignored which clearly shows that deaths were 16+ times greater in the WHO’s European and North and South American Regions than in the WHO’s African region?

These questions need to be asked of our law makers.  Make an appointment with your MP and go through these concerns.  This may even be the first time that they have heard about them. If we don’t resist strongly, and soon, many freedoms will vanish for good. 

#saveoursovereignty