The WHO’s “Power Grab”

Time is running out to save our medical freedoms

From May 2024, the unelected World Health Organisation will be able to decree lockdowns, order quarantines and even demand compulsory vaccinations

On 27 May last year, Boris Johnson’s Government effectively gave the World Health Organisation (WHO) permission to override our national Parliament in the name of health through its Pandemic Preparedness Treaty.

Unlike most treaties, the WHO operates through passive assent. Member states are assumed to agree to their proposals unless they deliberately opt out.

Therefore, unless the UK Government formally withdraws from the treaty, the WHO and its Director-General will, by May 2024, have the power to take decisions that could restrict the lives of billions of people.

Concentrating power

However, a second threat looms via new amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), also due for adoption in May next year.

Dr Tess Lawrie, co-founder of the World Council for Health, has called these new IHR “outrageous.” In April she warned: “If these come into force, the Director-General of the WHO would be able unilaterally to declare a public health emergency, without seeking any advice from member states or WHO committees.”

This would vastly concentrate power in the hands of the incumbent, Tedros Ghebreyesus, who persuaded the UK and other Western nations to adopt Chinese-style lockdowns in 2020.

“A self-perpetuating pandemic industry” will be created

Unlike current WHO guidance, which is only advisory, Dr Lawrie noted that “some of the new amendments propose that WHO advice would be legally binding on all state parties and their people.”

Mandatory medical examinations

She continued: “Amongst the more disturbing changes proposed is the removal of a clause requiring the WHO to consider an individual’s human rights in the application of the [IHR]. The WHO will be empowered to issue binding requirements for lockdowns, masks, quarantines, border closures, travel restrictions, mandatory vaccinations and mandatory medical examinations”.

Furthermore, new amendments would bring in an international database system to “enforce travel restrictions through [medical certifications], all preferably tied to a personal QR code.”

Significant additional funding will be “required to set up an extensive surveillance process in all member states, which the WHO will verify regularly”.

Both the IHR amendments and the proposed Pandemic Treaty also encourage “systematic global collaboration to counter dissent from official governmental or WHO guidance”.

Conflicts of interest

Dr Lawrie suggests that “a self-perpetuating pandemic industry” will be created “with major internal conflicts of interest, funded by the world’s taxpayers but controlled by a UN agency that has no national legal oversight… To justify continued funding, there will be a massive incentive to declare and respond to perceived threats,… accruing profit to WHO sponsors through pharmaceutical recommendations and mandates.”

Unlike most treaties, the WHO operates through passive assent

All or some of the IHR amendments are due to be adopted in May 2024 at the 77th World Health Assembly. Once passed, they become binding all 194 WHO member states, although countries retain the right to reject them within ten months.

To force another parliamentary debate on the WHO’s proposals, sign a petition by Dr Tess Lawrie. It already has over 99,000 signatures and needs 100,000 by 3 October 2023. “Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005,” is at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635904

Who funds the WHO?

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) was the second-biggest WHO funder in 2021, at $375 million, while Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance, set up by the BM F), was its fifth-biggest funder at $245 million.

With its interests doubly represented, the BMGF is the only non-country to have a seat at the WHO’s top table. Thus the WHO most often reflects the position of its biggest funders.

It’s not too late to petition the King

In our last issue, we said: “It’s not too late to write to your MP.” Now Tony Bennett, MA, editor of the British Church Newspaper, explains why we should write to King Charles III using his ‘Purple Postcard’ petition

Postcard campaigns work!

Back in 2003, my friend Graham Wood and I organised a campaign of sending postcards to the late Queen Elizabeth.

Thousands of purple postcards a day through the King’s letterbox are bound to have an impact

Our Government had wanted to impose a European Constitution on us and our postcards bore the legend, ‘No European Constitution without a Referendum’.

Within months, nearly 220,000 sent postcards to the Queen and the Government backed down!

Today we face an even greater danger from the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. Our MPs have failed us; only a dozen attended a debate forced by a petition with 156,000 signatures that demanded, “Do not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless approved via public referendum”.

We must go higher – to King Charles himself. Some say he would never use the Royal power of veto, but every Tuesday, the King meets the Prime Minister. Thousands of purple postcards a day through the King’s letterbox are bound to have an impact.

‘Petition the King postcards’

See petitiontheking.org or order postcards direct from me: 10 for £2.50; 20 for £4; 40 for £7 and 100 for £14.

Email petitiontheking.org/contact, phone 07835 716537, or write to:

Petition the King, 14 Kingswood Road, Shrewsbury, SY3 8UX