Why you should raise objections with your MP about WHO’s proposed IHR amendments and Pandemic Treaty

Recently, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), declared the covid emergency over.  It highlights the absurdity of bureaucratic regimes dictating when we should be scared or not scared of an endemic virus.

Hoping to continue with the covid tyranny sometime in the future, in his announcement Tedros the Terrorist added that the threat from covid is not over and “if we all go back to the way things were before covid-19 we will have failed to learn our lessons.”

Given WHO is proposing amendments to the International Health Regulations and adoption of a ‘Pandemic Treaty’, we should be extremely concerned with this statement.  It doesn’t take a genius to work out how corrupted the system is especially with a controllable stooge at the helm.

For those who are not yet familiar with the history of changes made by WHO in preparation for the covid pandemic, the Health & Advisory Team (“HART”), for example, have written an article explaining how WHO’s definition of “pandemic” has been changed since as early as 2009 to allow for plans designed for catastrophic events to be triggered in the absence of a catastrophe occurring.  You can read HART’s article HERE.

As pointed out by Dr. Michael Yeadon, WHO also altered the definition of “immunity” and “vaccine.”  He also noticed that countries were not following their pandemic plans but instead implemented the most wasteful intervention which accomplishes nothing useful – “lockdowns.”

In yet another example of new definitions or terms created for the covid era, at a Truth be Told Rally held in London on Saturday Dr. Yeadon said that in his entire career he, and every scientist he has ever come across, had never used the term “the science” or “trust the science.”

Dr. Yeadon has become world-renowned for exposing things about the response to the covid pandemic that he knew were not true.  “They were lying to you,” he said. It’s not only the lies about the effectiveness of PCR tests, masks or lockdowns. “They’ve lied to you about the entire pandemic … there was no pandemic.  The deaths only started after the WHO declared a pandemic.”

Below are excerpts from the rally on Saturday which includes MP Andrew Bridgen’s speech followed by Dr. Yeadon at timestamp 7:39.  You can watch all the speakers at the Rally on CHD TV HERE.

It’s understandable then why most are more than concerned by WHO’s attempts to become the sole health authority, a global health dictatorship, to which all member States are subject. 

Dr. David Bell has written a letter template that you can use to write to your Member of Parliament (“MP”) regarding the proposed WHO pandemic treaty. The letter is intended to stimulate discussion within parliaments on key issues.

Dr. Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and a background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the WHO.

Letter Template to Raise Objection to the Proposed Pandemic Treaty of the World Health Organisation

By Dr. David Bell as published by Pandemics Data & Analytics (“PANDA”)

The proposed International Treaty (“CA+”) and amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”) build on a growing program of centralising authority to declare and manage health emergencies amongst the leadership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) and allied private international agencies. 

They aim to expand a cycle of intensive surveillance, threat identification, mandated restrictions on populations, and medical responses that will operate above national jurisdictions and outside direct control of the populations they impact. This is the culmination of a growth in private and corporate control over WHO and international health policy, driven by a commercial imperative to expand markets for health commodities. International health is moving from a servant of countries to a commercial cartel in which the populations of countries are essentially captured.

Download the letter template (Word document) HERE

The WHO is a branch of the United Nations, set up in the late 1940s to support countries in managing various aspects of health. It was intended to be subject to control by memberstates, taking its instructions from the World Health Assembly which is made up of health ministers of member states. However, although it was originally funded by member states, it has become increasingly dependent on funding from private foundations, and corporations, particularly those heavily involved in, or invested in, the pharmaceutical industry.

While the WHO itself has noted that pandemics are rare and impart relatively low mortality, recognising only 4 in the 120 years before 2020, funding within the WHO has shifted increasingly toward a pandemic focus, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical – vaccine – responses. A permanent international bureaucracy is being developed, at considerable cost, to deal with a historically rare problem. It will depend on the declaration of new emergencies or pandemics to justify its existence. It will be funded predominantly by public money, but the beneficiaries of its decisions will overwhelmingly be the commercial entities that are currently promoting its growth.

In the context of covid-19, it is clear that vaccine-based interventions are having a limited impact on overall outcomes, while other unprecedented interventions promoted by the WHO, against their own former pandemic guidance, have had major negative impacts on all aspects of society, including economies (massively increasing poverty), healthcare and education.

The world needs international forums for sharing data, for concentrating technical expertise to support countries lacking these and to facilitate discussions between countries concerning health issues, including emergencies. Such organisations must be in service of member countries and their people, not act as unelected authorities, funded and influenced by conflicted, non-national interests that attempt to direct and control the lives of free citizens.

Outline of the WHO instruments

IHR draft Amendments (detail here): 

  • 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 required actions that the States undertake to follow and implement.
  • Solidify the WHO Director General’s ability to independently declare emergencies.
  • Set up an extensive compulsory surveillance process in all States, which WHO will verify regularly through a county 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.

CA+ (treaty) (detail here):

  • Set up a new 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 supranational “Governing Body,” under WHO auspices, to oversee the whole process.
  • Expand scope by emphasising a “One Health” agenda, being defined as a recognition that a very broad range of aspects of life and the biosphere can impact well-being, and therefore fall under definition of a ‘potential’ international health emergency.


Both the treaty and IHR amendments are currently scheduled to be voted on at the World Health Assembly meeting in May 2024

The treaty will come into force (for ratifying countries) a month after 30 countries have ratified.

The IHR amendments would come into force for countries that do not reject them in the first half of 2025.

Both would have force under international law.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s