The WHO Pandemic Treaty and Amendments to the International Health Regulations: Enabling a Global Health Dictatorship

Intended to form part of international law, preparations for the creation of a World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic treaty began in 2001. Far from strengthening the prevention of, preparedness for, and response to future pandemics as the latest draft of the text claims, its implementation could severely undermine democracy by limiting the ability of national parliaments to make crucial healthcare decisions in the best interests of their citizens. Aided by proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations of 2005, the treaty threatens to transform the WHO into a global health dictatorship.

The sweeping influence exerted by the WHO during the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of revised International Health Regulations passed at a meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 2005. The decision-making body of the WHO, the WHA’s meetings are held annually in Geneva, Switzerland, and attended by delegations from the WHO’s 194 Member States. 

Prior to 2005, the WHO had principally acted as a coordinator, assistant, or collaborator to the public health services and drug regulatory authorities of its Member States. But with the passing of the revised International Health Regulations, the WHO took on vast new powers that were unprecedented in the field of global health. These essentially enable it to decide when a public health emergency of international concern exists and to take key decisions regarding what measures should be implemented in response. Under the regulations, the WHO’s recommended actions can include vaccination, quarantine, isolation, drug treatment, and contact tracing, among others.

Now, however, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the road is being prepared for the WHO’s already considerable powers to be expanded still further. Particularly worryingly, the latest draft of the proposed amendments to the regulations shows that clauses that previously made their provisions non-binding are being reworded – effectively making them mandatory and giving the WHO real decision-making powers over its Member States. As such, claims that the planned pandemic treaty will not undermine national sovereignty are at best disingenuous, as its text has to be viewed in light of the increased authority that, if approved, will be given to the WHO under the amended International Health Regulations. 

The WHO thinks you have “too much information”

The growing concern over the WHO pandemic treaty isn’t simply that it could undermine democracy by preventing national parliaments from being able to make crucial healthcare decisions in the best interests of their citizens. Through introducing the term “infodemic,” the treaty seems to be attempting to prevent the spread of truthful information about science-based natural health approaches and dangerous experimental vaccines. Without citing any evidence, the text claims that having “too much information” available during a disease outbreak causes “confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health.” Suggesting who this wording is primarily intended to benefit – namely, the WHO itself – the text states that having too much information apparently “leads to mistrust in health authorities.” To counter this, “infodemic management, at local, national, regional and international levels,” is proposed. 

The pandemic treaty also dramatically expands the WHO’s areas of interest. Through what it terms a “One Health approach,” the global body now intends to be able to take decisions in health matters related to animals, ecosystems, and the environment. The treaty specifically refers to “taking action on climate change,” for example. Several observers have suggested that with these extended powers, the WHO could potentially declare an environmental or climate emergency and enforce lockdowns.

Given the global body’s close links to Bill Gates and the pharma industry, and the hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding it receives from them, there is a growing worldwide recognition that this looming power grab represents a fundamental threat to democracy . At the very least, the increasing transfer of powers to the WHO raises important questions regarding national sovereignty and personal liberty. 

Ultimately, if its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the WHO has sold its soul to corporate interests and cannot be trusted to take important decisions on global health. It is surely in all of our interests to demand that our national lawmakers do not sign away the sovereignty that the WHO is seeking. 

Paul Anthony Taylor

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.

Prior to joining the Foundation, Paul’s background was in the music industry, where he worked as a keyboard player and programmer with artists including Paul McCartney, Bryan Ferry, Bill Withers, the Verve, Texas, and Primal Scream.

He first became interested in natural health after falling ill with a chronic fatigue syndrome-related disorder in 1991 and subsequently making a full recovery through the use of natural health therapies. After meeting Dr. Rath and Dr. Niedzwiecki at an anti-Codex rally in Berlin in 2002, Paul was inspired to make a life-changing decision to leave the music industry to work for the Foundation and help defend the right of patients worldwide to have free access to natural health approaches.