This will mean the End of Our True Freedoms, thanks to the decision makers in Canberra. Our health may be determined by the Chinese Communist Party, the major player in the WHO.

The WHO is a money grabbing collection of unelected bureaucrats who I would never employ. Never to guide our future well-being.

Go to the video at the end for an explanation regarding the deeper and most serious issues we are facing as free people.

As of May 21, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) has made significant strides in global health governance with the adoption of a new pandemic agreement and the finalisation of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

International Health Regulations (IHR) Amendments

The IHR (2005), a legally binding framework for 196 States Parties, has undergone substantial revisions to enhance global health security. These amendments were adopted by consensus during the 77th World Health Assembly in June 2024 and are set to come into force on September 19, 2025, for most countries. For the four States Parties that rejected the 2022 amendments, the new amendments will come into effect on September 19, 2026 .

Key aspects of the amendments include:

Enhanced Surveillance and Reporting: Countries are required to strengthen their capacities for early detection and reporting of public health events.

Clarification of WHO's Role: The WHO will continue to issue so-called non-binding recommendations during health emergencies, without the authority to impose measures such as lockdowns or travel restrictions on member states.

*Definition of Pandemic Emergency: A new classification, "pandemic emergency," has been established to denote a public health emergency of international concern caused by a communicable disease that poses a high risk of widespread impact and requires coordinated international action. I might add that this is a rarity.

WHO Pandemic Agreement

On May 20, 2025, the WHO adopted a landmark pandemic agreement aimed at bolstering global preparedness and response to future pandemics. The agreement was approved by 124 countries, with 11 abstentions and no votes against.

Salient features of the agreement include:

Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS): A framework to ensure equitable sharing of pathogen data and access to vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics.

Equity and Solidarity Principles: Commitments to fair distribution of pandemic-related resources, particularly to low-income countries.

*Strengthened Health Systems: Measures to enhance national and global health infrastructure and workforce capabilities.

The agreement will enter into force once at least 60 countries have ratified it. Notably, the United States, having withdrawn from the WHO under the Trump administration, did not participate in the agreement. Australia should have done the same.

If the WHO oversteps its authority under the new International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments or the Pandemic Treaty (now called the WHO Pandemic Agreement), several serious and far-reaching negative consequences could arise—particularly in relation to national sovereignty, civil liberties, democratic governance, and scientific transparency. Here is a breakdown of the potential dangers:

1. Erosion of National Sovereignty

Even though the WHO claims the treaty and IHR amendments are “non-binding,” I argue:

International pressure and soft coercion mechanisms (e.g. funding access, trade restrictions) can effectively override our national policy decisions.

Governments may feel obliged to follow WHO directives to maintain international standing or economic benefits, especially stupid governments.

Domestic laws could be rewritten to comply with global health standards, bypassing public or parliamentary debate. And our politicians will do this to curry favour with the elites.

Example Risk: A national government suspends its constitutionally protected freedoms during a declared WHO "pandemic emergency," even without credible local health data.

2. Unaccountable Global Bureaucracy

The WHO is an unelected, unaccountable international body funded in part by private foundations and corporate interests (e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, and pharmaceutical companies). If given greater influence, WHO decisions could/will prioritise donor interests over public welfare as they did with Covid.

Concern: Regulatory capture—WHO may favour vaccine-based strategies over prevention or low-cost treatments, sidelining evidence that doesn’t align with pharmaceutical or political profit agendas.

3. **Suppression of Medical and Scientific Dissent

A codified global response framework will lead to centralised one-size-fits-all mandates, reducing space for local experts, clinicians, or researchers to challenge policies. National authorities may criminalise dissent by labelling alternative approaches as misinformation if they contradict WHO policy.

Example: Doctors who question WHO-recommended vaccines or protocols (e.g., early outpatient treatments) may face deregistration or legal consequences, as they did with Covid.

4. Threats to Bodily Autonomy and Informed Consent

Provisions tied to vaccine equity or pathogen sharing could result in national mandates or restrictions based on WHO guidance. If WHO guidance includes vaccine passports or digital health certificates, freedom of movement and employment will be curtailed for dissenters.

Example: A person refusing a WHO-endorsed vaccine is denied access to education, work, or travel—even if the vaccine is experimental or conditionally approved as happened with Covid.

5. Data Sovereignty and Privacy Invasion

The new Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system involves real-time genomic surveillance and data sharing. Sensitive health and genetic data could be shared with private or foreign entities without citizen consent.

Concern: Global surveillance systems could be repurposed beyond pandemics, enabling broader forms of biosecurity control, surveillance capitalism, or biometric identification.

6. Mission Creep into Non-Communicable Crises

By defining a pandemic emergency broadly, WHO may expand its jurisdiction into areas like climate change, mental health, or misinformation—justifying sweeping new powers.

Warning: The scope could gradually shift from genuine pandemics to chronic social or political issues framed as “health threats,” enabling expansive control.

7. Delay in Response and Political Manipulation

Global consensus mechanisms may slow critical decision-making. WHO declarations could be politically manipulated—delayed, exaggerated, or underreported—to serve geopolitical interests or manage optics.

Example: WHO's delayed declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency in 2020, widely viewed as influenced by political sensitivity to China.

8. Loss of Local Adaptation and Community Trust

Top-down, centralised mandates may ignore cultural, environmental, or healthcare system differences, undermining efficacy and public trust. Communities may resist or ignore policies they perceive as foreign-imposed or irrelevant.

Result: Increased polarisation, civil unrest, and loss of faith in both global and local public health institutions, a phenomenon clearly illustrated following the BS of the Covid pandemic.

While global cooperation for pandemic preparedness is desirable, granting any power to the WHO poses serious national risks. The balance between international coordination and domestic autonomy must be vigilantly protected.

Our health may be determined by the Chinese Communist Party.

Click the picture below for the video. explaining clearly what is happening in Australia.