On May 21–30, 2023, the 76th World Health Assembly will meet in Geneva, Switzerland. Here, the delegates from 194 nations will vote on proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). These amendments will require only a majority vote of the member nations to be adopted. Unfortunately, this legally binding document does not require the advice and consent of the United States Senate, or even a signature. In fact, the U.S. has already agreed to obey the rules of the IHR by virtue of its membership in the World Health Organization (WHO).

Have you taken your place on the wall?

View Comments (20)

Any WHO member nation can propose amendments to the IHR. This time around, at least 16 “nations” — some of these are actually entities that represent multiple countries — have submitted changes, including the U.S. As of the most recent meeting (February 20–24, 2023), this 197-page document now contains over 300 changes. And amongst those pages and changes are discomforting word insertions or deletions that change the original scope and purpose of the IHR — an agreement considered international law.

Investigative journalist James Roguski has meticulously pored over these amendments and identified the most pressing issues that would affect how any future pandemic or health emergency is to be handled. On his website, Roguski presents what he considers the top 10 reasons to oppose the IHR amendments. If adopted, these changes will seriously infringe upon the God-given rights and freedoms of American citizens — and of the citizens of every other nation as well.

Roguski’s 10 reasons are listed below. (Refer to this document to cross-reference these specific changes as noted.) Roguski’s list is not exhaustive, but it does include a sufficient number of examples. Keep in mind that any amendment submitted by a member nation will be fully considered by the IHR voting body and has the possibility of adoption in the future.

• From advisory to mandatory: Changes the overall nature of the WHO from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally binding (Article 1 and Article 42).
• Potential rather than actual emergencies: Greatly expands the scope of the IHR to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health” (Article 2).
• Disregard for dignity, human rights, and freedoms: Seeks to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people” (Article 3).
• Allocation plan: Gives the WHO’s director-general control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” that requires developed states to supply pandemic-response products as directed (Article 13A).
• Mandatory medical treatments: Gives the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, and proof of vaccine, as well as to implement contact tracing, quarantine, and treatment (Article 18).
• Global health certificates: Institutes a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms, and a traveler’s health declaration (articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, and 44, and annexes 6 and 8).
• Loss of sovereignty: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and makes the Emergency Committee’s decisions final (Article 43).
• Unspecified, potentially enormous financial costs: Redirects unspecified billions of dollars to the “pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and emergencies industrial complex,” with no system of accountability (Article 44A).
• Censorship: Greatly expands the WHO’s power to censor what it considers to be “misinformation” and “disinformation” (Annex 1, page 36).
• Obligations of duty to cooperate: Creates an obligation to build, provide, and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry (Annex 10).

More specifically, four member national entities have proposed amendments that surrender their sovereignty to the WHO: Bangladesh, Malaysia, and the U.S., plus countries listed on the WHO’s website as part of the “African Region.” Additionally, the European Union, India, Switzerland, and the U.S. are proposing amendments that would expand the scope of the IHR agreement by surrendering power to the WHO’s director-general and regional directors to unilaterally declare health alerts and emergencies of regional and international concern. This gives way too much authority to a single entity.

Another major concern involves an amendment proposed by Malaysia, referring to Article 42, page 99. The proposed amendment reads:

 Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by ALL STATE PARTIES (emphasis ours).

If this amendment is passed, it would change the nature and purpose of the WHO by allowing its recommendations to become legally binding — that is, mandatory rather than voluntary — for all member nations.

Perhaps the most problematic issue of all is that six member national entities have submitted amendments that would restrict people’s freedom to travel by requiring some form of global digital ID or passport. These national entities are: Armenia, the EU, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Uruguay (on behalf of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil). The use of digital passports tied to vaccine/medical records is a clear violation of medical freedom and has the potential to create digital prisons. The World Council for Health is strongly opposed to any kind of digital vaccination certificate as a condition of travel. Naomi Wolf, co-founder and CEO of digital company DailyClout, has warned: “‘Vaccine passport’ sounds like a fine thing if you don’t understand what these platforms can do. I’m the CEO of a tech company, I understand what this platform does. It is not about the vaccine or the virus, it is about your data. What people need to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all.” The WHO has its own guide, published in 2021, titled Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates: Vaccination Status — and this shows that the organization is heavily invested in this idea.

Additionally, Russia and India have submitted amendments that would authorize the WHO to censor information. This is a violation of free-speech rights and of the freedom to receive information. In the U.S., where free speech is embedded into the Constitution, this is an overt attempt to undermine our founding documents.

As if all this were not bad enough, an amendment submitted by India seeks to delete the words “full respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” If these words are deleted, it destroys the credibility of a document that claims to protect public health.

If any of these amendments were to pass, the U.S. would find itself at the mercy of the WHO, which is an extension of big pharma and of billionaire globalist Bill Gates. Liberty Counsel shares that “as of 2020, eight of the 15 members of the WHO Advisory committee were affiliated with either the Gates Foundation or Big Pharma. Four NGOs (three of which were founded by Gates, and the fourth ‘partnered’ with Gates in the past) gave WHO $1.4 billion and collectively spent nearly $10 billion on Covid.” Why are we allowing billionaires and pharma companies to determine our future health decisions? In addition, the gross mishandling of the COVID pandemic by the WHO, which initially assisted China in the Wuhan cover-up, proves that this global organization’s recommendations should always remain just that: recommendations. In the end, these amendments are not about health, but rather about monitoring, surveillance, and reporting. They are about power.

The truth is that the U.S. needs to exit the WHO. When this country joined that organization in 1948, we reserved the right to leave at any time, with the stipulation that we give a one-year notice and fulfill our financial obligations. On May 26, 2022, a letter was sent to President Biden, signed by more than 80 members of Congress who criticized his decision to reverse the Trump administration’s plan to leave the WHO. On Jan. 9, 2023, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., submitted H.R.79 (the WHO Withdrawal Act), which would stop the U.S. from funding the WHO and would also repeal U.S. membership.

In the meantime, these IHR amendments must be stopped. Make no mistake, your silence equals consent. Please do your part by joining or expanding on the work of Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who introduced legislation that would “require any convention or agreement resulting from the work of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) intergovernmental negotiating body be deemed a treaty, requiring the advice and consent of a supermajority of the Senate.”

Additionally, form emergency committees to solve this continuing problem. Moreover, it would make sense to find out who the delegates are that represent the U.S. in the WHO Working Group. Do these representatives know the will and wishes of the American people and their Congress?

We live in the United States of America, where the U.S. Constitution is supreme, not the World Health Organization.

I urge you to read through the IHR amendments in the link provided. Keep in mind that ANY amendment proposed by a nation state (state party) is considered for possible adoption. Do not let our sovereignty and freedoms be signed away at the 76th World Health Assembly in May 2023 — or at any future meetings.

How are you praying about those who seek to destroy our freedoms and sovereignty? Share below.

Angela Rodriguez is an author, blogger, and home-schooling mom who studies the historical and biblical connections between Israel and the U.S. You can visit her blogs at 67owls.com and 100trumpets.com. Her latest book, Psalm 91: Under the Wings of Jesus, was released in June 2021. Photo Credit: iStock.