On June 2, 2024, at the World Health Assembly (WHA77), the International Health Regulations (2005) Amendments were adopted and the World Health Organization (WHO) made concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global pandemic agreement within a year.
What does the adoption of the IHR amendments mean?
The recently adopted amendments will facilitate an enormous global build up of the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex which seeks to trigger ongoing “pandemic emergencies” that will be made even worse by “relevant health products.”
- Pandemic emergencies as we have learnt since the last four years have been a total failure, however these amendments seem to be steps to further repeat the same mistakes committed rather than learning from the same.
- The spread of an infectious disease spanning geographical and international boundaries is highly overrated given that the climatic and living conditions in different countries are varied and calling for a “One Health” approach is neither scientific nor rational.
- Complying with the health measures recommended by WHO is unjustified as decisions regarding containment of diseases should be subject to local factors.
- Unnecessary travel restrictions which are implied by these amendments is unjustified as well, given that the science behind the spread of diseases is still being debated.
- The idea of vaccine passports is totally flawed and there are multiple examples of the failure of vaccine passports. Also coercing the travellers to get vaccinated is a violation of informed consent.
- State imposed isolation and quarantine have not been proven to help disease eradication or contain spread of diseases but has led to mental trauma, depression etc. It has been proven that social distancing and masking did not stop covid.
Hegde had highlighted potential threats to national sovereignty and constitutional rights, citing the undue influence of pharmaceutical interests and lack of transparency in WHO decision-making. Mandaviya responded on March 1, 2024, defending the WHO’s role and emphasizing its support for member states’ sovereignty.
Complying with WHO health measures is unjustified as decisions regarding containment of diseases should be subject to local factors
Also, in an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with copies to concerned Cabinet ministers, bureaucrats and MPs, health rights network People’s Alliance for Public Health (PAPH alias JanSwasthya Morcha), has urged that India should not be a signatory to the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement and Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005.
The countries who objected/restricted to the adoption of the IHR amendments were Japan, Slovakia, Argentina, Russia, Iran and Costa Rica. Costa Rica cited the following “the prolongation & the uncertainty of a potential pandemic treaty will only serve to worsen the existing polarization that affects the well being of my population.” Iran said “The outcome text of the IHR does not fully address the long-standing concerns raised by a number of states and is far from what we expected through this process, namely equity & development related issues". Argentina said “We lament that the amendments which are ample and complex, have been finished at the last moment.” Japan rejected because the attendance was less than 1/3.
The desperation of WHO in passing the Pandemic Treaty and adopting the IHR amendments can be well understood from Dr Tedros’ own words at WHA77 when he said “It’s time to get aggressive with anti- vaxxers”.
The desperation of WHO in passing the Pandemic Treaty and adopting the IHR amendments can be well understood from Dr Tedros’ own words at WHA77 when he said “It’s time to get aggressive with anti- vaxxers”.
---
*Digital marketing and content management professional with keen interest in public health policies
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor