Opposition to the Proposed International Health Regulations by the World Health Organization

Go to the end of this Substack to see how you can stop this proposal going ahead. The Aligned Council of Australia has a template that makes it easy for you to make a submission.

My Opposition to the Proposed International Health Regulations by the World Health Organization.

The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) by the World Health Organization (WHO) represent a severe and unwarranted intrusion into national sovereignty, individual freedoms, and fiscal responsibility. Leadership in the Australian government is critically needed, particularly as we approach the next election. A complete reformation of the current medical system, which masquerades as a health care system, is essential.

Our relationship with the World Health Organization is pathological, sustained by a political class (Prime Ministers, Health Ministers and many others) that views alignment with globalist institutions as essential to their own advancement, both domestically and on the world stage. This dynamic prioritises international accolades, optics, and adherence to global frameworks over the immediate welfare and autonomy of the Australian populace. Politicians often justify these ties by invoking the necessity of global cooperation, yet the reality is that such relationships frequently serve to entrench external influences in national policy-making, undermining Australia's sovereignty.

The odorous leadership within the WHO itself, characterised by troubling conflicts of interest and unaccountable decision-making, exacerbates this pathology. An organisation that prioritises the interests of private donors and multinational corporations over transparent, evidence-based governance cannot credibly claim to serve the health interests of all member nations equally. Australia's continued alignment with such an institution indicates not just a failure of oversight but a conscious choice to abdicate national decision-making to an external body whose priorities may not align with our own.

The next federal government must demonstrate bold leadership by reevaluating this relationship. Removing Australia from the WHO’s influence, particularly its binding International Health Regulations, is an essential step toward reclaiming sovereignty and establishing a healthcare system that reflects the values, needs, and aspirations of Australians. This move would mark a turning point, prioritising domestic health reforms over adherence to the current flawed globalist (Big Pharma) paradigms.

Financial and Social Costs

The financial burden of the proposed IHR amendments is staggering. Australia has already contributed $100 million to the WHO in 2023, in addition to its core funding of $75 million for 2022-2027. This level of financial commitment is crazy and diverts resources that could be better allocated to addressing critical domestic healthcare issues, such as reducing hospital wait times, improving mental health services, and combating the rise of chronic illnesses through preventative measures such as advertising optimal nutrition in the MSM. It also exacerbates Australia's fiscal strain, which was already worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic's economic fallout to the tune of over $700 billion. These costs are especially concerning given the WHO’s track record of inefficiency and mismanagement, raising doubts about the return on investment for Australian taxpayers. By redirecting these funds toward strengthening the national healthcare system, Australia could make tangible improvements in public health outcomes, ensure equitable access to care, and reduce the need for reliance on external organizations with questionable governance and priorities. Adopting the proposed amendments would cost Australians billions more, diverting resources from pressing domestic needs. Charity begins at home.

The COVID-19 pandemic offers a cautionary tale. Estimates suggest the pandemic cost Australians hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic losses. Government responses—including prolonged lockdowns, mass testing, and vaccine rollouts—facilitated a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Australians to wealthy corporations and individuals both here and overseas. Reports indicate that multiple new billionaires emerged in Australia, perhaps as many as 20, profiting from pandemic-related contracts and ventures, while countless small businesses shuttered, and families were plunged into financial precarity.

Globally, the wealth of billionaires increased by over $5 trillion during the pandemic, starkly highlighting the unnecessary and inequitable flow of resources. Here in Australia, the disproportionate benefits enjoyed by multinational pharmaceutical companies and tech giants underscore how poor policy decisions exacerbated existing inequalities, with thanks to our Prime Minister and his advisors. This deliberate or negligent impoverishment of another level of Australians was wholly unnecessary. A more targeted and preventative approach, such as ensuring adequate vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc levels in the population, could have mitigated the pandemic's severity without such severe economic and social costs.

The social costs of the pandemic are equally devastating. Education disruptions, a surge in mental health issues, and increased societal division remain unaddressed. Many of these outcomes were preventable with better-informed, less reactionary policymaking that prioritised holistic health strategies over authoritarian controls and profit-driven solutions. The WHO is responsible for this devastation as well and it can no longer be trusted.

The WHO’s endorsement of ineffective or unproven measures during past global health crises has exacerbated public skepticism. One notable example is its response to the H1N1 pandemic, where allegations of conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies led to the unnecessary stockpiling of vaccines and antivirals, burdening national economies without clear public health benefits. Similarly, the WHO’s handling of Ebola outbreaks highlighted its slow decision-making processes and inadequate resource allocation, which contributed to preventable deaths and prolonged crises. These examples illustrate the organization’s inability to deliver effective, impartial leadership, further underscoring the risks of granting it expanded powers through these amendments.

The WHO’s Expanding Powers and Sovereignty Issues

The WHO is seeking powers far beyond its mandate, encroaching on national sovereignty and democratic decision-making. Articles 1, 12, and 42-43 require member states to accept or justify rejecting WHO recommendations, undermining their ability to act in their citizens' best interests. Additionally, the proposed amendments require the establishment of new national authorities to implement WHO directives, creating unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies.

Such overreach is inconsistent with the WHO’s constitution, which limits its authority to matters like quarantine, nomenclatures, and international standards for diagnostic and pharmaceutical procedures. Expanding the WHO’s authority to include climate-related emergencies and other non-communicable events threatens to politicise global health.

The WHO’s Track Record of Incompetence and Corruption

The WHO’s failure during the COVID-19 pandemic—including its undue deference to China and its slow response—raises serious questions about its competence. The organisation failed to follow its own rules and deadlines during the drafting of the 2024 IHR amendments, further eroding trust. These failures, however, are not isolated incidents. The WHO has long faced accusations of corruption and undue influence from private interests, particularly multinational pharmaceutical companies and private donors like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Such entities contribute a significant portion of the WHO’s budget, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and the prioritisation of profit-driven agendas over genuine public health needs.

Additionally, the leadership of the WHO has drawn widespread criticism. The current Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has faced allegations of mishandling health crises in his home country of Ethiopia and of being overly politicised in his role. These controversies highlight the undesirable nature of the organisation’s leadership and its inability to maintain impartiality and accountability.

Equity and Solidarity vs. Individual Human Rights

The inclusion of terms like “equity” and “solidarity” in Article 3.1 of the IHR amendments poses significant challenges to individual human rights. While equity suggests fairness, and solidarity implies unity, their application in this context appears to treat humanity as a homogenous entity, ignoring individual dignity and freedoms. This approach contradicts the stated respect for “the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” in Articles 3 and 13. How can these abstract collective ideals coexist with the deeply personal rights and freedoms guaranteed by international human rights laws?

Surveillance and Privacy Concerns

The proposed IHR amendments also introduce surveillance measures that could infringe on privacy rights and freedom of movement. Digital health certificates and vaccine passports are a key concern, as they discriminate against individuals based on vaccination status and create unnecessary barriers to international travel. Articles 5, 18, and 23 of the proposed amendments promote a global digital identification system, which is inconsistent with internationally respected human rights norms. Furthermore, the requirement to share microbial, genomic, and genetic data (Articles 6 and Annex 1) raises ethical concerns about consent and potential misuse of sensitive information.

Choice and Informed Consent

One of the foundational principles of modern healthcare is the right to choose what is best for oneself and one’s family. The proposed IHR amendments undermine this principle by neglecting the importance of informed consent and access to safe and effective medical products. The amendments also fail to protect individuals from being subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without their explicit, free, and informed consent, violating Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Such overreach erodes individual autonomy and risks creating a coercive global health framework.

Censorship and Freedom of Expression

The proposed IHR mandates member states to “address mis- and disinformation” (Annex 1), a provision that poses a direct threat to free speech and scientific debate. Similar attempts, such as Australia’s Combatting Mis- and Dis-information Bill, have faced widespread public opposition. Freedom of expression, particularly in the context of public health crises, is critical for innovation, accountability, and trust. The WHO’s proposal to control research and development (Article 11) and determine what constitutes "appropriate" information further consolidates its overreach. Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook Meta has recently admitted that his fact checkers were censoring important information from the public regarding early treatment and prevention during covid. This has cost very many lives.

Flawed Definition of "Relevant Health Products"

The expanded definition of "relevant health products" in the proposed IHR amendments exclusively focuses on pharmaceutical interventions—including vaccines, diagnostics, and gene-based therapies—while entirely excluding non-pharmaceutical measures such as repurposed medicines, vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, or lifestyle recommendations. This definition, found in Article 1, demonstrates a clear bias towards products developed and marketed by pharmaceutical companies, many of which have public-private partnerships with the WHO. By failing to include proven non-pharmaceutical interventions, the definition limits member states' ability to adopt holistic and context-appropriate health measures during public health emergencies. This bias not only skews global health policy towards profit-driven drug based solutions but also disregards centuries of evidence supporting the efficacy of natural and lifestyle-based approaches to health promotion and disease prevention.

As someone who has published extensively on the role of nutrition and immune support during the COVID-19 pandemic, I find this exclusion deeply troubling. My work, including articles and press releases for the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (ACNEM), highlighted the significant benefits of vitamin D, vitamin C, and zinc supplementation in bolstering immunity and mitigating the effects of viral infections. The ACNEM press release for the "CD Zinc campaign" underscored the need for governments to prioritise these affordable, accessible interventions, which align with principles of preventative medicine and public health. Ignoring these measures in favour of pharmaceutical dominance undermines global efforts to achieve equitable, cheap, available and effective health outcomes. We have to “keep the bastards honest”.

The Case for Replacing the WHO

Given its systemic corruption, lack of accountability, and failure to uphold its mandate during critical global health crises, the case for replacing the WHO rather than merely reforming it is compelling. A replacement organisation must be grounded in transparency, independence, and evidence-based policymaking. It should feature a governance structure that includes equitable representation from all member nations, ensuring decisions reflect diverse perspectives and priorities. Funding should be derived from assessed contributions rather than voluntary donations to eliminate conflicts of interest. Operational principles must prioritise preventative research and care, respect for individual freedoms, and support for sovereign decision-making by nations. This approach would foster a global health body genuinely dedicated to protecting and improving the well-being of all people, free from undue influence and profit-driven motives. A new international health body, free from conflicts of interest and rooted in transparency and evidence-based policymaking, would be better equipped to address global health challenges. Such an organization should prioritise preventative health measures, uphold individual freedoms, and respect national sovereignty.

Replacing the WHO would send a clear message that global health governance must serve the people it claims to protect, rather than perpetuate profit-driven and authoritarian models. Australia, along with other member states, must lead the call for a new, reformed approach to international health cooperation that aligns with democratic values and prioritises equitable health outcomes. We have been at the cutting edge of integrative nutritional health care and medicine for longer than any other Western nation.

In conclusion the proposed IHR amendments represent a costly, intrusive, and ineffective attempt to centralise global health governance under the WHO. By prioritising pharmaceutical solutions, censoring dissent, and expanding surveillance, the amendments undermine individual rights, national sovereignty, and public trust at an enormous, wasteful expense to the Australian people.

Powerful leadership in the Australian government is now critically needed, particularly as we approach the next election. A complete reformation of the current medical system, which masquerades as a health care system, is essential. The new federal government must prioritise preventative health strategies, uphold democratic principles, and break away from any relationships with the WHO and its International Health Regulations. It is only through bold and visionary leadership that Australia can reclaim its sovereignty, protect its citizens, and set a global standard for health governance that truly serves the people.

Ian Brighthope

You Can Help to Stop the International Health Regulations.

Go to the Aligned Council of Australia’s Website and put in a submission asap.

It’s very easy. There is a template for you. You can have your say and be an effective Aussie.