Discover more from Hugh’s Newsletter
WHO controls the world
or will do if you let it.
“Governments hold first detailed discussions on proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)”—Did you know about this?
Very major changes regarding how we are governed are currently being discussed and promoted. They are called the International Health Regulations. Amendments (summarized below) Almost unbelievably it surrenders national governments’ authority to an unelected world body or to be more precise its chief. Just look at the powers being invested in ONE man!
I have written to 20 or so of our politicians plus the CMO, I await replies
The matters I raise are matters for all representatives, I am tired of being fobbed off by people saying I am not in their constituency-these are not constituency matters, MLAs are making decisions which affect people who are not their constituents.
(MLAs are political representatives at the N.I government)
I raise two matters and would be grateful for a response.
1 We should be very worried--note the extra-territorial powers. What is the party's position on this?
International Health Regulations. Draft Amendments:
· Expand the definitions of pandemics and health emergencies, including the introduction of ‘potential’ for harm rather than actual harm. It also expands the definition of health products that fall under this to include any commodity or process that may impact on the response or “improve quality of life”.
· Change the recommendations of the IHR from ‘non-binding’ to mandatory instructions that the States undertake to follow and implement.
· Solidify the Director General’s (DG’s) ability to independently declare emergencies.
· Set up an extensive surveillance process in all States, which WHO will verify regularly through a country review mechanism.
· Enable WHO to share country data without consent.
· Give WHO control over certain country resources, including requirements for financial contributions, and provision of intellectual property and know-how (within the broad definition of health products above).
· Ensure national support for promotion of censorship activities by WHO to prevent contrary approaches and concerns from being freely disseminated.
· Change existing IHR provisions affecting individuals from non-binding to binding, including border closures, travel restrictions, confinement (quarantine), medical examinations and medication of individuals. The latter would encompass requirements for injection with vaccines or other pharmaceuticals.
2. CA+ (treaty):
· Set up an international supply network overseen by WHO.
· Fund the structures and processes by requiring ≥5% of national health budgets to be devoted to health emergencies.
· Set up a ‘Governing Body’, under the auspices of WHO, to oversee the whole process.
· Expand scope by emphasising a ‘One Health’ agenda, defined as a recognition that a very broad range of aspects of life and the biosphere can impact health, and therefore fall under the ‘potential’ to spread harm across borders as an international health emergency.
2 Will the party make a statement on the disgraceful scenes in houses of parliament when most of OUR elected representatives were seen leaving when Andrew Bridgen MP stood up to voice real concerns about the harms of vaccines raised by his constituents-concerns which I and many others share. Surely it is a duty of our elected representatives to listen to concerns even or especially when they may not share those concerns?
The sight of Andrew Mitchell ordering MPs out , a man sponsored by his pharmaceutical connections is an affront to all right thinking people..