Testimony on the WHO in New Hampshire

HB 1156 Prime Sponsor Rep Granger

It was an honor to testify in front of the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs on February 2, 2024, on House Bill 1156.

The World Health Organization was founded in 1948, as the health arm of the United Nations, and currently is comprised of 194 Member States. Initially it was 100% funded by the Member States, but in the recent years the funding relationship has changed. Today only 20% of the funding comes from the assessed contributions from the Member States and 80% of their funding comes from voluntary contributions from Member States and other private partners, like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI Alliance, Wellcome Trust, etc. These voluntary contributions are typically earmarked for specific projects or diseases, meaning the WHO cannot freely decide how to use that money. 

In March 2021, twenty-five heads of governments and international agencies called for a new treaty to protect the world from future health crises. Currently, the WHO is simultaneously negotiating two documents: the Pandemic Agreement, also known as Accord, Treaty, Ca++, and Zero Draft, and Amendments to International Health Regulations.

The draft IHR amendments would lay out new powers for the WHO during health emergencies and broaden the context within which they can be used. The draft of the Pandemic Agreement/Treaty is intended to support the bureaucracy, financing, and governance to underpin the expanded IHR.

The World Health Assembly of the WHO will meet in May 2024 to vote on adoption of both the Pandemic Agreement and the Amendments to International Health Regulation. Once approved by the 2/3 of the World Health Assembly, The Pandemic Treaty will go to our Senate for ratification and will need 2/3 of the votes to be implemented. International Health Regulations (IHR) were first adopted in 1969 and most recently amended in 2005. The IHR is legally binding international law that covers measures for preventing the transnational spread of infectious diseases. The amendments to IHR need 50% of the World Health Assembly vote and do not need specific approval by our Congress to be enacted. The Member States can OPT-OUT within ten months of the approval by the WHA.

First, we will discuss the Amendments to the International Health Regulations. The proposed amendments TO IHR would give WHO authority over member States by changing the wording from non-binding to binding recommendations that will now mandate the Member States to follow instead of just considering those recommendations. States will accept the WHO as the “AUTHORITY” in international public health emergencies.

The amendments expanded the scope of the document from public health risks to all risks that might affect public health to include risks to animals, ecosystems, and climate.

Article 18 of the amendments will also change the definition of Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) to include not only actual but also potential concerns that Director-General deems notable. Some of the powers that the Director General will have include detention of individuals, travel restriction, the forcing of health interventions (like testing, inoculation, and medical treatments), and the requirement to undergo medical examinations.

The WHO will have power to designate opinions or information as misinformation or disinformation and it can require country State governments to intervene and stop such expression and dissemination. Obviously, that will interfere with US constitution and is incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

After declaring an emergency Director General will also have power to instruct governments to provide WHO and other countries with resources, funds and commodities. Countries will also give power to the WHO over patent law and intellectual property, including control of manufacturing, commodities deemed to be relevant to the potential or actual health problem that WHO considers of interest.

Summary of the draft Amendments to IHR: 

·       Expand the definitions of pandemics & 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 ability to independently declare emergencies.

• Set up an extensive 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.

Next is the Pandemic Agreement/Treaty/Accord. The Treaty would:

• Set up a global supply network overseen by WHO.

• Set up a ‘Governing Body,’ under WHO auspices, a new WHO Secretariat and Conference of the Parties to oversee the whole process.

• Set up Infodemics management at the local, regional, national and international level to control the information flow and free speech. Under Article 18 #1 instructs the Parties to “combat false, misleading misinformation and disinformation”.

• Under Article 3 #2 “States have in accordance with the charter of the UN and general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies” BUT this language fails to address the issues of the WHO assuming sovereignty for health matters over states through this treaty and in the event of the pandemic.

• Under Article 4 treaty directs nations to surveil for and perform genetic sequencing of potential pandemic pathogens they find and to safely handle them

• Under Article 6 the Parties will not only “surveil for but will share the pathogens with pandemic potential” as they are established in Article 12 which defines those pathogens as “identified to infect humans, have high transmissibility and are capable of wide spread in human populations, and are highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and mortality in humans”.

• Under Article 8 the Parties “shall build on existing tools, develop and implement transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation systems” there is no discussion here on all the failing policies and procedures of the past pandemic.

• Expand scope by emphasizing a ‘One Health’ agenda, being 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.

What is One Health? It has no solid meaning. It claims that humans, animals, plants and ecosystems are all part of One Health and that everything on the planet is interrelated and affects health. Essentially under the guise of One Health, the WHO would have control of all life on the planet. They will not need to prioritize human health, but rather they could choose to “balance” human health with animal and plant health, as well as environmental health in the name of “climate change”.

Enforcement

While both texts are intended to have force under international law, countries can theoretically opt out in order to preserve their sovereignty and protect their citizens’ rights. However, low-income countries could potentially face financial pressures, restrictions, and sanctions from entities such as the World Bank that are also invested in this agenda. Of relevance, the 2022 United States National Defense Authorization Act (HR 7776-960) includes wording concerning adherence to the IHR, and action concerning countries that are uncooperative with its provisions.