Health authorities from the World Health Organization (WHO) are set to assume responsibility for health policies in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and numerous additional countries within the next four days.

In recent news, there has been a significant discussion surrounding the amendments to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR). These changes, set to take effect on July 26, 2022, have sparked concerns about potential coercion, censorship, and infringement on human rights. However, a closer look at the facts reveals a different story.

The amendments, adopted by consensus at the World Health Assembly on June 1, 2024, aim to enhance global pandemic response by introducing a new category of "pandemic emergency" and improving information sharing among countries and the WHO. Contrary to some claims, these amendments do not grant the WHO authority to enforce lockdowns, travel restrictions, or medical mandates.

The WHO has clarified that it does not have the power to impose such measures. Its role is to provide evidence-based recommendations and support countries in implementing health policies based on their national guidelines. Concerns about digital health documents, such as global digital IDs, are not part of the WHO's mandate but are seen as potential risks to privacy and personal liberties by certain U.S. officials.

As for the claims that these amendments represent a significant shift in global health governance, often referred to as the globalists' endgame, it's essential to note that the premise of these amendments taking effect on July 19, 2022, is inaccurate based on recent developments and explanations from the WHO.

The debate around the IHR amendments highlights tension between global health governance and national sovereignty. Some countries have expressed concerns about the influence of international regulations on domestic health policies. However, the amendments focus on enhancing global cooperation and response to pandemics without infringing on national sovereignty.

Concerns about digital health documents underscore broader debates about privacy, technology, and personal freedoms in the context of public health measures. The U.S., for instance, has formally rejected these amendments, citing concerns over sovereignty and the potential broader implications of the IHR changes.

In summary, the WHO does not have the authority to impose lockdowns, travel restrictions, or medical mandates under the recent amendments to the IHR. The amendments focus on enhancing global cooperation and response to pandemics without infringing on national sovereignty. The media's silence regarding this global power shift may have contributed to the misconceptions surrounding the amendments. It is crucial to stay informed and rely on accurate information to make informed decisions about our health and rights.

References: [1] World Health Assembly. (2024). IHR Amendments. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ihr/amendments/ [2] U.S. Department of State. (2024). Statement on IHR Amendments. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/statement-on-ihr-amendments/ [3] World Health Organisation. (2024). IHR Amendments: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ihr/amendments/faqs [4] BBC News. (2024). WHO IHR Amendments: What Do They Mean for Global Health Governance? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/health-61237179 [5] World Health Organisation. (2022). WHO's Role in Pandemic Response. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/who-role-in-pandemic-response

The IHR amendments, scheduled for implementation on July 26, 2022, aim to bolster global pandemic response, not to enforce coercive measures or intrude on human rights, as some claim.
Despite assertions, the amendments do not empower the WHO to force lockdowns, travel restrictions, or medical mandates, as the WHO itself clarified.
The amendments focus on fostering global cooperation and improving information sharing among nations and the WHO, without encroaching on national sovereignty.
Concerning digital health documents, they are not within the WHO's mandate but are a matter of privacy and personal freedoms, as demonstrated by U.S. officials' opposition.
The IHR amendments debate reveals tensions between global health governance and national sovereignty, with some countries voicing worries about international regulations affecting domestic health policies.
The discourse around digital health documents and the IHR amendments implicates broader discussions about privacy, technology, and personal freedom in the realm of public health measures, requiring ongoing informed vigilance and the pursuit of accurate information.

Health authorities from the World Health Organization (WHO) are set to assume responsibility for health policies in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and numerous additional countries within the next four days.