DR DAVID BELL
Much has been written on the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which most countries are making themselves subject to after July 19th (this week). Many raise concerns of loss of sovereignty, censorship, corporate greed and conflict of interest. But most are missing the main point; the sheer and outright stupidity and fallacy on which the whole pandemic agenda is based.
July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organisation (WHO) can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. They will be required to set up an extensive network to search for well-established natural phenomena, including the tendency of viruses to mutate into variants. This has been part of the natural world for hundreds of millions of years, but demonstrating it has recently become highly profitable due to a confluence of technological advances and intense marketing.
Firstly, we have developed the ability to detect variants with technologies such as PCR and gene sequencing. This also helps find a lot of viruses which we had not noticed before as they are mostly harmless. Secondly, we have developed digital identification and communications technologies that allow an unprecedented level of mass media coordination and public coercion – what Goebbels could do on a national scale, we can now do almost globally. Thirdly, we have developed pay-to-print modified-RNA medicines (vaccines) that are really cheap and, through the use of fear and coercion, can be injected into almost everyone, returning excellent profits.
The text of the IHR amendments reads fairly innocuously. Few countries will decline their adoption. The people making the decisions often have career interests in the pandemic industry anyway, and politicians don’t see much gain in standing against the flow of finance. This will flow upwards, as it did in Covid, but some of it diverts to their electoral funds. Most think it is better that they get these funds than their opponents. Unfortunately, but obviously, modern democracies are very much about money.
Politics aside, it is worth considering how we got to such a place. The last big natural pandemic was the Spanish Flu in 1918-19. That was before we invented any modern antibiotics (most flu deaths were probably from secondary bacterial infections) and before all the gizmos and cleverness of modern medicine. Since then, infectious disease death rates have plummeted because we eat better, have better sanitation, live in better conditions and have modern clinics and all that technology provides. If the Spanish Flu spread now, it is inconceivable that an equivalent virus could cause the same pattern of mortality, unless we really wanted it to. A century of advances in medical technology and human resilience do not amount to nothing, despite what many medical authorities who stand to gain from this would have us believe.
Moderate flu pandemics in the late 1950s and 1960s were the only events since 1918 where a respiratory virus outbreak actually got significantly above baseline for annual mortality (Swine flu (H1N1) in 2009 didn’t). Then came COVID-19, associated with death in wealthy countries at just above the average age of death, a disease quite probably arising from the research carried out by the same pandemic industry that then profited from it.
This leaves a huge credibility problem in justifying the pandemic agenda that now dominates public health. It is being dealt with by pummelling the public and politicians with stories sufficiently farcical that they start to be believed. We still have an urge to believe that institutions such as the WHO, World Bank and G20 would not make stuff up to trick us.
Undaunted by the lack of evidence, the WHO set about essentially creating a fiction through its two major outbreak publications of the past five years, Managing Epidemics and Future Surveillance, both published in 2023. At one time, I am sure WHO would not have done this. The reports base their claim of rising outbreaks on a single graphic showing no outbreaks in the year 2000, but a steady accumulation since. WHO is insisting that diseases like cholera, plague, Yellow Fever and influenza that were far worse in past decades and centuries are actually increasing now. Someone was paid to design this graphic (below) to persuade rather than impart truth. It is challenging not to characterise this as fraud, but it is consistent with WHO messaging on this issue since early 2020.
.
In the 20 years prior to COVID-19, experts recruited by the G20 to present evidence supporting the IHR amendments could only find outbreaks amounting to about 190,000 deaths in the 20 years pre-Covid (see “major infectious disease outbreaks” in Annex D of the 2022 G20 report). Putting numbers to these, nearly all (163,000) are attributed to Swine Flu in 2009 (about a quarter of normal yearly flu mortality). Most of the remainder were from the geographically confined West African Ebola outbreak, and the Haiti cholera outbreak which arose from sewerage leaking from a United Nations compound. In contrast, about 1.3 million people currently die every year from tuberculosis and over 600,000 children from malaria. Roughly 100 million died from malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS combined over the same 20-year period. Undaunted, the G20 secretariat concluded that the acute outbreak above constituted an “existential threat” justifying far more resources.
Not to be outdone, the World Bank teamed up with WHO to provide an explanatory graphic in its official report aimed at convincing our governments to divert funds to pandemics rather than the major endemic diseases: malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. To justify public money being allocated to profitable pandemic preparedness rather than high burden diseases, it needed to show pandemics cost economies far more. It drew a line for malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS combined at $22 billion per year (i.e., probably about 1% or 2% of true cost). Then it drew a wavy line above this to indicate that SARS1 (840 deaths) and MERS (about 800 deaths) cost $50-70 billion.
Covid is costed at over $9 trillion, which clearly includes costs of lockdowns and incentive packages from the extraordinary response. A Lancet article that the WHO would have previously agreed with estimated annual economic costs of tuberculosis alone to be $508 billion, but the WHO and the World Bank chose $22 billion for TB, malaria and HIV combined. The WHO considers a virus killing at average age of about 80 years is orders of magnitude more expensive than three diseases that have killed about 100 million, mostly children and young adults, in just 20 years.
.
There is far more extensive evidence of the WHO and partner agencies misleading the public, media and governments to promote the pandemic agenda. Writing about this is not fun. They are engaged in deliberate misrepresentation intended to divert funds to wealthier nations, their corporations and investors, increasing inequality and causing net harm. The private sector and a few countries can control most of the WHO’s work through specified funding. Member states go along because delegates want a job with the same agencies or refuse to accept that these agencies fabricate a story, even when a cursory review shows their claims are exaggerated or unfounded.
Even though the main proponents of the IHR amendments cannot articulate a coherent case for having them, they will come into force. This is simply about building an industry to repeat Covid: taking money from the larger but less profitable disease burdens, printing more, and concentrating this wealth amongst those promoting the new normal – the exact opposite of what the WHO is supposed to do.
The United States and Argentina have stated intent to leave the WHO. We will see how that lasts. The UK is doubling down, prioritising taxpayer funding for pharma companies through the 100 day vaccine initiative that monetises IHR amendments. The era of principles and ideals is long gone from international health. More money will be channelled to ever-growing bureaucracies whose sole function, whose only reason for existence, is to identify theoretical threats that can be used to close economies, remove the livelihoods of others and extract more of their remaining wealth.
The hapless inhabitants of WHO member states seem to have no real leaders anymore. Eventually the whole edifice will collapse under the weight of its own fallacies and economic unsustainability. In the meanwhile, the sad corporatist mess that international public health has become will continue indebt and demoralise the public.
Dr David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
This article (The Deadline for Countries to Exempt Themselves From the New Pandemic International Health Regulations is This Week) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Dr David Bell
See Related Article Below
Replacing human dignity with “equity”?
WHO IHR amendments to come into force of September 19, 2025 – your country has until July 19, 2025 to opt out
JESSICA ROSE
The Seventy-Seventh World Health Assembly adopted a package of amendments to the International Health Regulation (2005) on June 1, 2024, to “strengthen” global preparedness, surveillance, and response to public health emergencies. These amendments are considered significant and include provisions for equity, a States Parties Committee, and National IHR Authorities.
David Bell in a recent Brownstone publication wrote and I quote:
July 19th is the last day that Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) can withdraw from the IHR amendments (without entering a multi-year withdrawal process). By failing to withdraw, they will be committing their taxpayers to fund the key surveillance aspects of a rapidly expanding industry that is the pandemic industrial complex. They will be required to set up an extensive network to search for well-established natural phenomena, including the tendency of viruses to mutate into variants. This has been part of the natural world for hundreds of millions of years, but demonstrating it has recently become highly profitable due to a confluence of technological advances and intense marketing.
The International Health Regulation amendments adopted by consensus, (i.e. without a vote), by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024 can be rejected by member states up until July 19, 2025.
If not rejected, the new amendments go into effect in member countries – and this currently includes both Canada and Australia – on September 19, 2025.
What it will mean to the average person is pretty much COVID on crack, if you ask me. History does not lie.
You can go to the WHO’s website to find out more from their International Health Regulations: amendments from their questions and answers page. For your information, they write:
No. WHO will have no ability to impose any health measure, including lockdowns or other restrictions, on the populations of any country.
No, eh? Can I get that written on a billboard, please?
In this same Q&A, they write a couple of times that none of these ‘amendments’ are legally binding. Yes. We know. None of them ever were, but this didn’t stop humans from pepper spraying other humans out of unnecessary ramped up fear and aggression. I can only imagine what effect wearing riot gear, and sporting a shield and weapons meant to hurt the masses would have on my mind. I likely would just not wear that shit.
None of these impositions as part of amendments are legally-binding. They never were either.
The determination of an event as a pandemic emergency serves as the highest level of global alert and, most importantly, it implies the issuance of Temporary Recommendations to States Parties – which, by definition, are not legally binding – to guide them in preparing for and responding to the PHEIC.
The reason I highlighted this is because you MUST know your legal rights. Your sovereignty is YOUR sovereignty and no one can tell you what to do with your own body or restrict its movement. Make sure that you and your loved ones know this.
Here’s the 2023 version of the proposed amendments that have been “on the table” as per the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulation “Summary of proposed amendments”. Please read it.
In black and white, it is proposed to replace the word “dignity” with “equity”, to replace the words “human rights” with “inclusivity”, and to replace the words “fundamental freedoms” with “coherence”. What the hell does “coherence” even mean?
So far, I don’t know the full list of countries that remain currently subject to these amendments in case of a new PHEIC pandemic (pun intended), but I do know that Israel opted out before the July 19, 2025 deadline, citing concerns over potential infringements on national sovereignty, security, and economic interests. Yeah, no shit.
Here’s Israel’s Plenary Statement at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly. Click on the screenshot for the pdf.
.
Whoever wrote this is right. All countries should have been allowed more time. My advice? NEVER SIGN ANYTHING especially if you haven’t had time to read it. Not sure where this went but the word on the street is that the Israeli Health Minister Uriel Busso decided to opt out.
You can also read the published article entitled: IHR amendments and the “pandemic agreement” an Israeli perspective.1
This article is a great write-up describing legal and ethical concerns of the “suggested” amendments. The author, Dr Silvia Behrendt – director of the Global Health Responsibility Agency (GHRA), Salzburg, Austria among other things, writes the following in the article:
Whilst these are, at the time of writing in February 2023, only proposals, some of which contradict each other and certainly not all of which will be adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA), an analysis is warranted. So far, little public or legal academic discussion of these extensive amendments (and the parallel processes within the WHO of negotiating a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response) has taken place. This is despite the fact that the outcomes of these processes have the potential to affect the livelihoods, lives, health and human rights of individuals around the world, inter alia because amendments proposed will, if adopted, give unique ‘emergency’ powers to the WHO and in particular its Director-General (DG), thereby entrenching the securitised approaches to managing infectious disease outbreaks embodied in the so-called Global Health Security (GHS) doctrine that has dominated the WHO-led global response to Covid-19 into international health law.
Listen, we all know the globalists are going for power grabs and they learned a lot from the last time they released the hounds of convid tyranny. They learned how far people can be pushed. They learned what triggers people. They learned better how to control them and worst of all, they made lists of the non-compliant. That’s me. And you. They will use force against us again – even if it doesn’t look like force.
And don’t forget, they shifted trillions around – from our coffers to theirs.
So read these documents, and learn and know your rights. Don’t just ‘accept’ anything. Ever. And for Christ’s sake, if anyone ever tries to tell you that equity can replace human dignity, tell them to define both words and then have a good think about it. (Hint: equity is code for green-lighting injecting everyone.)
Kamin-Friedman, S., Davidovitch, N., Levine, H. et al. IHR amendments and the “pandemic agreement” an Israeli perspective. Isr J Health Policy Res 14, 13 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-025-00676-6
This article (Replacing human dignity with “equity”?) was created and published by Jessica Rose and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply