Latest Natural Health News

WHO Update: Medical Freedom Still in Peril

WHO Update: Medical Freedom Still in Peril
Share This Article

A lot has been happening behind the closed doors of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) bureaucracy as it seeks to be the global puppet master in a future pandemic. We need to keep fighting to preserve our freedoms. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:


  • We’re getting ever closer to the May meeting of the World Health Assembly where important decisions will be made regarding how future pandemics will be handled.
  • Recently-revised drafts of the International Health Regulations (IHR) and the “Pandemic Treaty” differ in some details but still represent a major assault on our freedoms.
  • We must oppose these changes, either by ensuring they must be ratified by the US Senate or by leaving the WHO altogether.

As we approach the May 18-22 meeting of the World Health Assembly, health bureaucrats are busy at work revising and amending both the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty.

Though these drafts have gone through revisions, we can’t lose sight of the main point. What we’re witnessing is an attempt to double down on many of the bad ideas that characterized the response to the COVID pandemic. If the WHO gets its way, it will be medicine by diktat, and you can kiss your freedoms goodbye during the next pandemic…whenever the WHO Director-General decides that is.

IHR Amendments – different words, same old story

A new draft of the IHR amendments was released a few days ago. A number of the proposed amendments that were most contentious (that we discussed in previous coverage) have been dropped—particularly the change in Article 1 that turned non-binding WHO recommendations into binding orders. But don’t get too excited. The new text is still full of amendments aimed at compelling states to follow the WHO’s orders. This is done by changing “should” to “shall” in key parts of the text, as well as adding new sections compelling states to certain actions. For example:

  • A new Article 13, section 1 reads: “Each State Party should shall, within the means and resources at its disposal, provide sustainable domestic funding to build, strengthen and maintain the core capacities required under these Regulations.” These core capacities include combatting mis- and dis- information (see Annex 1).
  • A new Article 13, section 9 states, “When requested by WHO, States Parties shall provide…support to WHO-coordinated response activities.” A plain reading of this section is that States must follow the WHO’s lead during public health emergencies.
  • A revised article 42 compels countries to “take all practicable measures… to engage with non-State actors…with a view to achieving compliance with, and implementation of, health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations.” The WHO’s definition of non-state actors is about as broad as it can be, including the private sector, academia, and non-profits. Here it seems the WHO is ordering States to pressure businesses and other entities to follow pandemic measures.

Then there are issues that remain from earlier drafts, such as amendments setting up what looks very much like a vaccine-passport-like system, potentially requiring proof of vaccination or testing certificates for travel (Article 35).  The WHO Director-General to still has the unilateral power to declare a public health emergency as well as a newly-created category, a “pandemic emergency” (Article 12).

In short, the draft of the IHR Amendments is a variation on a theme, that theme being giving the WHO more power to issue blanket health recommendations during a pandemic that States are expected to follow.

Watch our new video, Imagine a future with the WHO in charge
Share link:

Pandemic Treaty hoodwink

A separate “Pandemic Treaty” is also being negotiated. As others have noted, this “treaty” seeks to further entrench a one-size-fits-all approach to pandemic preparedness and response. It involves heightened bio-surveillance of pathogens of concern using the One Health approach, the development of medical countermeasures (i.e. vaccines), and seeks the “equitable” distribution of those products. There has been controversy over aspects of One Health and the development of a coordinated bio-surveillance apparatus, and here the WHO has pulled a dirty trick. In several places, the latest draft (April 2024) simply states that the details of these proposals will be worked out later. For example:

The modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of a One Health approach shall be further defined in an instrument, that takes into consideration the provisions of the IHR (2005), and is operational by 31 May 2026.

Just sign on the dotted line, and we’ll figure out the rest later!

The “treaty” also aims to ensure that states have the regulatory structures in place to grant fast-track emergency authorizations for investigational medical products, in addition to, once again, combatting mis- and dis- information that distracts people from the one-size-fits-all approach they should dutifully be following. Whether there are adequate measures in place to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these fast-tracked medicines, or systems in place to address and monitor the injuries caused by these drugs/vaccines, are issues that are largely ignored.

Lessons (un)learned

Recently we asked you to weigh in on what our position should be on this issue. The overwhelming response was that ANH should support bills exiting the WHO—and that is exactly what we are going to do!

It’s clear why so many of us feel this way. What all of this shows is that the WHO and other global health authorities learned nothing from the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no evidence that a centrally controlled, one-size-fits all response works better than a decentralized response that’s in the hands of healthcare professionals; in fact, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, quite the opposite. People are fed up with the idea that everyone on the planet should be subject to the same pandemic responses (lockdowns, masks, etc., no matter how destructive these policies were) and should be treated with the same drug or vaccine, no matter where they live or what their health status might be. Those of us who value freedom and sovereignty over our health need to fight as if our lives depended on it (because they do) to prevent these changes from happening.

Action Alert! Send a message to Congress urging them to support bills that take the US out of the WHO. Please send your message immediately.

2 thoughts on “WHO Update: Medical Freedom Still in Peril


    Had a conversation with someone about the need for a world government. She thought that we needed one.
    I replied that it may be true, however – not in the way some people may think!
    Depending on what one thinks of how and why it, should exist.


    When governments become corrupt and don’t have the best interests of the people at heart but, pretend to then there is no freedom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts