WHO/WEF/World Health Organization/World Economic Forum

[onawah]

Are You Ready for the WHO/CDC One Health Solution?
By The ANH Team
10/17/2024
https://anh-usa.org/are-you-ready-fo...alth-solution/

"Presidential elections and natural disasters aside, let’s not get distracted from the ongoing power-grab by the World Health Organization (WHO). Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:https://podcastle.ai/editor/player/6...9b3b48370eda21

THE TOPLINE

Ongoing negotiations over the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty aim to centralize global pandemic responses under the WHO, enhance the power of Big Pharma, and reduce individual freedoms.
The treaty has stalled on controversial issues such as bio-surveillance and equitable vaccine distribution, and the WHO is under pressure to finalize the treaty before a November deadline.
The treaty promotes fast-tracking emergency medical products, raising concerns about potential safety and effectiveness. It aims to impose a one-size-fits-all approach during future pandemics, while silencing dissent and promoting a global pandemic cartel.
While many Americans are understandably focused on other issues, negotiations over the so-called “Pandemic Treaty” are still going on. As we’ve been reporting for some time, this treaty, along with key amendments to the International Health Regulations, aims to centralize decision-making at the WHO, effectively forming a global pandemic cartel that funnels customers, and profits, straight into the hands of Big Pharma—all at the expense of your freedom. We need to remain vigilant in opposing this transfer of power to unelected bureaucrats.

The 11th round of negotiations on the Pandemic Treaty occurred in September, but not a lot of progress was made, particularly on several controversial issues. The main point of contention is the creation of a coordinated bio-surveillance apparatus under the banner of the One Health approach originally created by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and the “equitable” distribution of medical countermeasures (i.e. vaccines) that arise from this data sharing.

The problem for the WHO—and the 8 billion of the rest of us on planet Earth—is that time is running out to iron out these differences: the next round of negotiations is set for early November; November 12 is the latest date by which a December special World Health Assembly session can be called so the Pandemic Treaty can be adopted.

In response to this time crunch, a familiar tactic is being employed. Proponents of this treaty are essentially saying: “Just sign on the dotted line and we’ll figure out this difficult stuff later!” The latest draft of the Pandemic Treaty shifts important decisions to a Conference of the Parties, which will be set up after the World Health Assembly has adopted the treaty.

Other problematic provisions we’ve discussed previously remain. The “treaty” aims to ensure that states have the regulatory structures in place to grant fast-track emergency authorizations for investigational medical products.

But that’s not all. It cements a global, coordinated attack on free speech in the name of 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.

This is all in service to the creation of a global pandemic cartel. You’ll be told when the next pandemic hits, made fearful of the latest virus, then offered a quick-fix: a rushed, emergency-approved vaccine or gene-based drug. They’ll claim it’s all “following the science” while manipulating data to push their agenda. Critics will be silenced, alternatives discredited, and the complexity of our immune system ignored for their one-size-fits-all solution. If you think they haven’t learned from their COVID mistakes and are not gearing up to enforce their medical mandates more efficiently next time, think again.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to reject the Pandemic Treaty and the IHR amendments approved at the 77th WHA meeting. Please send your message immediately. https://anh-usa.org/are-you-ready-fo...alth-solution/ "

[onawah]

Global Opposition to the IHR Amendments
The International Health Regulations impact the lives of everyone on earth.
James Roguski
Jul 14, 2025From: jamesroguski@substack.com
Sun, Jul 13, 6:52 PM
Interview with Armor of Truth
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/...peg&open=false



"There is less than a week for leaders around the world to REJECT the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations. Do your part - help spread the word BEFORE July 19, 2025": https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/...armor-of-truth

[onawah]

The WHO is Still a VERY BIG PROBLEM
James Roguski
Jul 22, 2025
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/...ry-big-problem


(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

"196 nations (including the U.S.) are still parties to the International Health Regulations. The negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement are ongoing. NOW is the time to continue to push back.

SHARE THIS LINK: ExitTheWHO.com

PLEASE watch the video below

The International Health Regulations still apply to all 196 nations that are parties to the agreement (Including the United States, Israel and Italy).
Only 3 of the 193 parties to the International Health Regulations have clearly and publicly rejected the 2024 amendments to the IHR.
These three nations only rejected the amendments to the IHR.
They did NOT reject the existing International Health Regulations.
Regardless of where on earth you may live, if you realize the ongoing dangers posed by the World Health Organization’s subservience to the Pharmaceutical, Hospital, Emergency Industrial Complex (PHEIC) and want to continue to expose and oppose their actions, please contact me directly at 310-619-3055.
Feel free to call me via phone, send me a text message or connect via Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.

Below are a number of pertinent documents.

THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS

Below is the legally binding version of the International Health Regulations to which the United States, Italy and Israel are obligated to comply.

PLEASE READ ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 2 ON PAGE 21
If there is evidence of an imminent public health risk, the State Party may, in accordance with its national law and to the extent necessary to control such a risk, compel the traveller to undergo or advise the traveller, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 23, to undergo:

(a) the least invasive and intrusive medical examination that would achieve the public health objective;

(b) vaccination or other prophylaxis; or

(c) additional established health measures that prevent or control the spread of disease, including isolation, quarantine or placing the traveller under public health observation.

https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/IHR_2022-en.pdf

Below is the legally binding version of the International Health Regulations to which The Islamic Republic of Iran, Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia are obligated to comply until September 19, 2026.

https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handl...580496-eng.pdf

These 4 nations have until March 19, 2026 to REJECT the 2024 amendments to the IHR. If they fail to REJECT the 2024 amendments then they will be obligated to comply with an amended version of the above document that will include the 2024 amendments after September 19, 2026.


Below is the legally binding version of the International Health Regulations to which all other nations will be obligated to comply as of September 19, 2025:

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_fi...ACONF14-en.pdf


Below are the reasons why all nations should have rejected the amendments and why Iran, Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia still can reject them before March 19, 2026.

RejectTheAmendments.com

THE PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

Below is the decision made by the 78th World Health Assembly to adopt the “Pandemic Agreement”

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_fi..._10Add1-en.pdf


Below is the “Pandemic Agreement” that was adopted by the 78th World Health Assembly. The “Pandemic Agreement” cannot be signed by any nation until the “PABS instrument” that is mentioned in Article 12 has been negotiated and successfully adopted by the World Health Assembly.

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_fi.../A78_10-en.pdf


Below is a link to the information provided by the InterGovernmental Working Group (IGWG or IggWigg) that is negotiating the details of the “Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System Instrument”:

https://apps.who.int/gb/IGWG/


The Timeline and Deliverables for the ongoing PABS IGWG negotiations are below:

https://apps.who.int/gb/IGWG/pdf_fil...1_3Rev1-en.pdf


Igwg Timeline And Deliverables
218KB ∙ PDF file




Below are the “relevant stakeholders” who will be participating in the IGWG negotiations:

https://apps.who.int/gb/IGWG/pdf_fil...IGWG1_4-en.pdf

https://www.who.int/publications/m/i...tions-with-who

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/defau...s-with-who.pdf


Below are just some of the reasons to REJECT the “Pandemic Agreement.”

RejectTheTreaty.com

Australia
https://AustraliaExitsTheWHO.com/

https://AlignedCouncilOfAustralia.com.au/the-whos/

Malta
https://t.me/+k7mtii6ZBRNhMTM8

https://chat.whatsapp.com/F89b95OYz3x0adbI3APuhs

https://wch-malta.org/open-letters/

https://wchmalta.substack.com

Netherlands
https://stopwho.nl/who/ihr/

New Zealand
https://www.whoknows.co.nz/

https://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz/t...ame-of-health/

https://media.voicesforfreedom.co.nz...dresses-NZ.pdf

Poland
https://stopwho.pl/

Portugal
https://chat.whatsapp.com/DpgG1kpeooZ44txkqjnrTL

Sweden
https://exitwho.se/


If you support the effort to EXIT THE WHO and would like me to add a link to your efforts to the list above, please let me know.

James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive


DETAILS: REPEALThePREPAct.com
SIGN THE PETITION: REPEALThePREPAct.ORG
All support is deeply appreciated. "

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v6ube2i/?pub=4

[onawah]

US Has Rejected the Amendments to the International Health Regulations
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 13, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=362350852

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...dments-pdf.pdf

"Story at-a-glance
The U.S. officially rejected the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), citing threats to national sovereignty, free speech, and constitutional protections
If not rejected, the amendments would have allowed the WHO to influence lockdowns, vaccine documentation, and pandemic declarations without approval from elected officials or public input
Austria, Italy, and Israel also blocked the amendments before the July 19, 2025 deadline, each emphasizing the need for local control over health policy and rejecting unelected global oversight
Countries that did not formally reject the amendments by the deadline will be bound by them starting September 19, 2025, while four nations have until September 19, 2026, to opt out
Individuals can still take action by checking their country’s position, pressuring local representatives, informing others, and organizing efforts to defend national health autonomy

When a joint statement comes from both the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State, it’s worth paying attention. On July 18, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a formal rejection of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).1

The reason? The changes would give an unelected international body the power to shape national public health decisions — including pandemic declarations, digital health documentation, and so-called “equitable access” to medical products — without democratic oversight or public debate.

This isn’t just about bureaucratic language. These amendments directly impact your right to privacy, freedom of movement, and control over your personal health decisions. The updated rules include vague but far-reaching terms that would allow the WHO to interfere with national emergency response measures, compel governments to implement digital health surveillance tools, and facilitate narrative control under the guise of risk communication.

The language is intentionally broad — enough to authorize sweeping actions while avoiding accountability. And unlike WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even if a nation had exited the organization altogether. Italy, Israel, and Austria have also rejected or objected to the amendments. Their actions mirror the U.S. stance: health decisions need to remain within national borders and be governed by constitutional protections, not dictated by global bureaucrats.

In each case, officials warned of dangerous overreach, unchecked censorship, and the erosion of civil liberties under the pretense of public health. Understanding how these amendments were crafted, what they attempt to enforce, and why countries are pushing back is key. The next section breaks down what the U.S. rejection means in practical terms — and what it signals for your future autonomy in the face of global health mandates.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K1_StQj80mI

Bureaucrats Abroad Tried to Rewrite American Health Policy — but Failed
U.S. leaders have formally rejected WHO’s expanded authority via 2024 amendments to the IHR. These changes, according to the joint statement from Kennedy Jr. and Rubio, would have allowed the WHO to bypass American law and impose health directives, including lockdowns and vaccine documentation, without approval from Congress or the American people.2

•The amendments aimed to centralize emergency decisions under WHO control — The rejected amendments gave the WHO power to define and respond to what it calls a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

The updated language would have allowed the WHO to intervene in a country’s domestic affairs based on subjective interpretations of global solidarity or health equity. This would’ve included the ability to influence pandemic declarations and responses in ways that directly override national public health agencies and local policies.

•Officials warned that vague terms open the door to censorship — According to the joint statement, the terminology in the amendments was broad and undefined — phrases like “equitable access” and “risk communication” were left open to interpretation. In practice, this means global officials could have justified censorship or surveillance under the excuse of controlling misinformation or ensuring compliance with “equity” goals.

The U.S. response emphasized that this kind of ambiguity undermines scientific debate and allows politically motivated directives to masquerade as public health guidance. By embedding subjective language into binding agreements, international bodies like the WHO create a framework that narrows acceptable discourse and enforces medical compliance with minimal oversight. This is how policy becomes a mechanism for influence, not protection.

•Digital health tracking was a major red flag — The rejected language also encouraged countries to adopt digital health documents, including vaccine passports and health ID systems. These tools would’ve facilitated international tracking of individuals' medical records and health status, linking access to travel, work, or services to WHO-defined compliance standards.

The U.S. government made clear it “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

•The U.S. criticized the WHO’s poor track record during outbreaks like COVID — The joint statement called out the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing its susceptibility to “political influence and censorship — most notably from China.”

Officials stressed that entrusting the WHO with more control after this history of failed transparency and accountability would be irresponsible. Rather than improving emergency responses, the amendments risked repeating the same communication breakdowns and information suppression that marred the global COVID response.

•This decision preserves U.S. medical autonomy — According to the statement, “public health policy continues to be dictated by the values and will of the American people, not unelected global actors.”

The rejection ensures that American citizens retain constitutional protections and are not subject to directives issued by an international agency that does not answer to them. By refusing to accept the new language, U.S. health policy remains under the control of state and federal agencies, not bureaucrats in Geneva.

Kennedy Slams WHO’s Censorship Agenda and Digital Surveillance Push
As reported by The Hill, Kennedy Jr. warned that the newly proposed amendments to the IHR “open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic.”3 That kind of control doesn't just affect officials — it reaches into your life, dictating what information you hear, what platforms allow, and how you’re allowed to speak about health.

•Kennedy made it clear: the amendments undermine civil liberties — “The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty,” Kennedy stated in a video posted to X (formerly Twitter).4

This isn’t abstract policy — it’s about whether unelected officials have the authority to restrict your freedom to travel, gather, speak, or make medical decisions during a declared emergency.

•The WHO has no power to mandate, but the amendments would shift that balance — WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus publicly claimed that the organization “has never had the power to mandate lockdowns, travel restrictions, or any other similar measures.” While technically true under current rules, the new language would have pressured governments to comply with WHO-coordinated responses, including mandates and movement restrictions, without democratic consent.

•The amendments could force countries to create risk communication systems — Kennedy also took aim at a regulation that would require member countries to develop “risk communication” systems. While the term sounds neutral, Kennedy explained this language is code for information control: systems that control narratives, limit dissent, and enforce compliance with official positions.

•Kennedy’s rejection ties back to real-world harms seen during COVID — The article drew a direct line between the proposed rules and the suppression of debate seen in the last pandemic. According to Kennedy, the world already witnessed what happens when centralized health narratives dominate media, shut down dissent, and silence clinicians who question official doctrine. Locking that system into international law would repeat and worsen those mistakes.

Other Nations Joined the US in Refusing IHR Amendments
Austria, Italy, and Israel all took formal action to block WHO’s power grab. Their moves weren’t symbolic. Each took legal or parliamentary action to halt the WHO’s expanded emergency powers before the July 19, 2025 deadline.

Across all three nations, a common theme emerged: health policy needs to be made by local officials who are accountable to their people, not by distant bureaucrats. For citizens of those countries, that means their governments preserved the ability to make local health decisions without international interference.5

•Austria lodged a legal objection to buy time and preserve autonomy — Austria’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva filed a legal objection to the IHR amendments on July 17, 2025, just two days before the deadline.6 This objection ensures the amendments won’t apply in Austria until the national parliament has formally approved them.

In other words, Austrians now have a window to pressure lawmakers and block the changes permanently. The Ministry of Health confirmed that the rejection was filed to uphold the Austrian Constitution — not as a formality, but to maintain sovereignty over national health policy.

•Italy flatly rejected the amendments, bypassing future enforcement — Italy's Health Minister Orazio Schillaci, with the backing of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, formally declined the amendments on July 19.7 Their refusal wasn't a conditional objection — it was a full rejection.

According to translated excerpts from the Italian newspaper La Verità, the amendments would have given the WHO authority to issue binding recommendations on quarantines, movement restrictions, and supply chain management without consulting the Italian Parliament. Schillaci called it an unacceptable breach of democracy and promised to shield citizens from top-down directives that undermine constitutional rights.

•Israel’s leadership withdrew after months of internal review — In a bold move, Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel would not adopt the new WHO regulations.8 The decision came after sustained lobbying from Knesset members, health professionals, and legal experts.

Bosso explained that the treaty would give the WHO excessive influence over Israel’s national decisions, especially in areas like defense, economics, and education. His final statement made the stakes clear: “This is a complex and considered decision that is intended to protect the interests of the State of Israel and expresses our full responsibility for public health.”

How You Can Push Back and Protect Your Rights
If you're worried about losing your say in personal health decisions to international agencies, you’re not overreacting — you’re responding to a real shift in power. The 2024 IHR amendments weren’t just technical updates. They were written to centralize control, diminish national sovereignty, and give unelected global actors the ability to shape your country’s pandemic response without your input. That’s not a distant threat. It’s already on track to become binding policy in most of the world.

But this isn’t just about politics — it’s about protecting your ability to make informed, voluntary health decisions for yourself and your family. Whether you’re a parent, a business owner, or someone who values constitutional protections, you have tools right now to make a difference. Here are five steps I recommend to take action:

1.Find out where your country stands on the 2024 amendments — Start by checking whether your government has submitted a formal rejection or reservation. Most countries had until July 19, 2025 to opt out. If no action was taken by that date, the amendments will become binding on September 19, 2025.

However, if you're in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, or Slovakia, your government has until September 19, 2026 to make a decision. That means there’s still time to act locally — push your representatives to reject the amendments before that deadline passes.

2.Engage your elected officials directly — Don’t rely on petitions or mass emails. Pick up the phone, write a physical letter, or request a meeting with your local representative. Ask them where they stand on ceding health authority to the WHO. Be clear: you expect your country to retain full control over national health emergencies, including decisions about lockdowns, quarantine, and personal medical freedom. Hold them accountable by documenting their responses and sharing them publicly.

3.Educate others who still don’t know this is happening — Most people have no idea these amendments exist or what they mean. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers. Use clear language — avoid legal or technical jargon. Explain that this isn’t about rejecting health collaboration, but about maintaining constitutional authority and informed consent. Personal conversations are still the most powerful tool for shifting public awareness.

4.Share examples from countries that have already acted — Like the U.S., Italy, Israel, and Austria all formally rejected or legally objected to the 2024 amendments. Their decisions were grounded in protecting civil liberties, national decision-making, and freedom from censorship. Use their language when talking to others — it’s direct, reasonable, and based on rule of law. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or extreme — it’s responsible governance.

5.Organize locally — start small, but start now — If you’re part of a church, school board, town hall, or business network, use those platforms to raise awareness and build momentum. You don’t need to host a rally — start with a discussion group, a Q&A night, or a one-page fact sheet you hand out. The goal is to build informed communities who are ready to advocate for policies that reflect their values — not the agendas of unaccountable international agencies.

You’re not powerless. The laws that govern your health should come from those you elect, not those you’ve never heard of. This is your chance to defend that principle. Take the first step, and help others do the same.

FAQs About the 2024 IHR Amendments
Q: What are the 2024 IHR amendments, and why are they controversial?

A: The 2024 IHR amendments were adopted by the WHO to expand its authority over global health emergencies. These changes give unelected international officials power to influence national decisions on lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and digital health surveillance — without consent from local populations or legislative oversight.

Q: Has the U.S. accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?

A: The U.S. formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on July 18, 2025, in a joint statement by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Their decision was based on protecting U.S. constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and freedom from international mandates.

Q: Which other countries have rejected or objected to the amendments?

A: Italy, Austria, and Israel also took action to block the amendments before the July 19, 2025, deadline. Italy issued a full rejection, Austria filed a legal objection to prevent enforcement without parliamentary approval, and Israel withdrew from adoption entirely following internal government review.

Q: Are the amendments binding for countries that didn’t formally reject them?

A: Yes. For countries that did not submit a formal rejection or reservation by July 19, 2025, the amendments are scheduled to become binding on September 19, 2025. However, four countries — Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Slovakia — have until September 19, 2026, to opt out due to their prior rejection of the 2022 IHR amendments.

Q: What can I do if I disagree with the WHO's growing authority over health decisions?

A: Take action by learning your country’s official position, contacting lawmakers, educating your community, sharing examples from countries that rejected the amendments, and organizing locally. These steps help ensure that public health policy remains under democratic control, not dictated by international agencies."

Sources and References
1, 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services July 18, 2025
3, 4 The Hill July 18, 2025
5 Substack, James Roguski July 22, 2025
6 Substack, James Roguski July 18, 2025
7 Substack, James Roguski July 19, 2025
8 Substack, James Roguski July 12, 2025

[onawah]

BlackRock’s Larry Fink ascends to co-chair the World Economic Forum, just as governments push even more extreme restrictions in the name of “climate change.”
Starting at 48 minutes into the video here:
https://info.thehighwire.com/archive...46h2ach2sratbs