Why the WHO’s Updated Rules Should Alarm You

The World Health Organization (WHO) just violated its own policies to ram through updated rules that could give it unprecedented and disastrous power in the event of a “pandemic,” including over Americans.

Do you want to live in a world where an unelected bureaucrat in Switzerland determines when you can leave the house, where you can go, what you can say online, and what documents you need to access any public services? Trick question — it doesn’t matter what you want, because the World Health Assembly had a last-minute, rule-breaking solution to the fact it hadn’t yet passed its Orwellian amendments. The updated International Health Regulations (IHR) and treaty amendments could introduce a new era and type of totalitarianism, according to two experts.

The WHO has rules that require a four-month review period and an actual vote for updates, but that was all thrown under the bus, according to Dr. Robert Malone. He and Anti-Globalist International founder and president Reggie Littlejohn are sounding the alarm and demanding the invalid WHO amendments be rejected. From online censorship to invasive surveillance to a social credit score-like digital ID, the WHO appears to have taken “1984” and The Giver as recommendations.

Article 55 of the IHR provides that “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.” That deadline was January 27, according to Littlejohn, and yet the final draft of the proposed amendments was released only a few hours before the final vote. “If it is willing to ignore its own laws, why would we expect it to honor ours? For this reason, the Amendments to the IHR are invalid and should be rejected,” Littlejohn argued.

That’s not the only cause for concern, however. Article 4 of the updated treaty documentation blathers, “The Parties recognize that environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic [climate change caused by people], and economic factors increase the risk of pandemics and endeavor to identify these factors and take them into consideration in the development and implementation of relevant policies.” Essentially, that is a lot of long, woke words to say that the WHO wants to get involved in every aspect of life, surveilling and censoring and dictating.

In fact, the update draft of the WHO treaty’s Article 5 includes human, animal, plant and environmental health in a supposed “One Health Approach” to justify all kinds of invasive surveillance action.

Speaking of surveillance and censorship, deep in the objectionable amendments, Littlejohn found provisions to “develop, strengthen and maintain core capacities . . . in relation to . . . surveillance . . . and risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation.” The latter are terms globalists love to apply to free speech of which they disapprove, so whenever a globalist vaguely says misinformation and disinformation need to be addressed, he’s really saying that facts inconvenient to him need to be censored. In case you’re wondering, the WHO did collaborate with the UK government and multiple Big Tech companies to push false narratives online during the COVID-19 era, including about masking.

Nor does the WHO have such powers only during alleged pandemics. Its power has now been expanded to include potential pandemics, or periods of preparation for the next pandemic, as determined by the WHO director-general, Littlejohn wrote. Furthermore, the words “preparedness” and “prepare” are used some nine times more in the updated documents than in the previous IHR, again indicating the WHO’s intention of exercising its power even when there isn’t an officially declared pandemic.  These preparedness measures in the IHR include surveillance, censorship, and laboratory diagnostics, per Robert Malone.

Regarding the IHR, Article 35 details the requirements of “Health Documents,” including those in digital format. The system of digital health documents is consistent with, and in my opinion a precursor to, the Digital IDs described by the World Economic Forum. According to the attached WEF Chart, people will need a Digital ID to:

~Access healthcare insurance and treatment

~Open bank accounts and carry out online transactions

~Travel

~Access Humanitarian Services

~Shop and conduct business transactions

~Participate in social media

~Pay taxes, vote, collect government benefits

~Own a communication device [such as a cell phone or a computer]

In other words, individuals will need Digital IDs to access almost every aspect of civilized society. 

How does this play out? Just look at Communist China, where political dissidents’ lives can be instantly frozen by having their QR code turned red. The WHO and its Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus have been under the increasing influence of Communist China in recent years.

Littlejohn concluded, “The IHR Amendments, taken together with the impending Pandemic Treaty, will usher in a global, totalitarian bio-tech surveillance police state. Their adoption just hours after their disclosure is invalid and must be rejected.”