WHO – Changes to International Health Regulations (IHR)

Summary:

For some time, the WHO has been planning an enormous expansion of power for its Director-General. To the dismay of many, this was carried out in clear violation of the organization’s own rules (!): On June 1, 2024, at its 77th World Health Assembly, the WHO approved far-reaching changes to its International Health Regulations. The “violation” refers to the fact that the proposed amendments should have been submitted to the member states for review at least four months before the vote. However, the draft amendments were repeatedly revised up until the very last moment, and the four-month deadline was nowhere near met. Despite this, the amendments were passed, reflecting the WHO’s apparent belief that it is not bound by its own rules—a deeply troubling development.

Changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR)

The adopted changes to the International Health Regulations are indeed significant:

• In future, the WHO Director-General alone shall decide whether a pandemic exists.
• He alone shall decide which measures to take, ranging from lockdowns that we already know quite well as the prohibition of leaving one’s own home to prescribed health measures such as vaccinations, etc.

No control mechanisms are provided for: Even if it is clear that the WHO Director-General’s decision is wrong, it cannot be overturned by an independent court or panel of specialists.

Although panels with experts are planned in the WHO,

• the WHO Director-General decides who sits on these panels
• and even for how long each member remains part of such an expert panel and
• despite all these possibilities of control over these committees, nevertheless, the final decisions of the panel remain solely with the WHO Director-General.

The committees therefore certainly have no control function over the WHO Director-General.

The aforementioned amendments show that a single person shall be granted a great deal of power and the question arises why. Why are these decisions, which have very serious consequences for us all, not made by an independent body of several specialists instead? An explanation for that can be found in the financing of the WHO:

The dependence of the WHO on its funding

In contrast to the past, only roughly 11% of the WHO is financed by contributions from member states. Almost 85%, on the other hand, are voluntary donations.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with donations, but around 75% are earmarked donations, i.e. the donor decides what the money is to be used for. This certainly implies that donors of earmarked funds may have significant influence over the WHO, as the saying goes “he who finances, controls“. To that regard it is important to note that influencing a single person is certainly much easier than influencing an entire expert committee.

Just as an example: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation controls 21% of the WHO’s funds. At the WEF 2019, Bill Gates already announced that he had achieved the greatest return on invested capital from the vaccination industry, namely 20:1. He invested 10 billion and received a full 200 (!) billion back. Therefore, his donor activities are for sure not only driven by philanthropy but certainly also by economic interests.

Effects of a pandemic on the approval of medicinal products

In addition to the above it should also be noted that the declaration of a pandemic can have a significant impact on the admission and, above all, the duration of the approval proceeding for new drugs and vaccinations. From an economic point of view, it can therefore bring decisive advantages for a pharmaceutical company if the drug or vaccine it produces is to be used in a pandemic and – of course coincidentally – a pandemic happens to be declared during the approval process: This can drastically reduce the costs of the approval process the pharmaceutical company has to pay.

Thus, the WHO Director-General being given so much power as a single person, and at the same time the WHO being so economically dependent on donors, who therefore have enormous influence over the WHO and its Director-General, is clearly a setup that can be heavily abused for corrupt behavior. This, unfortunately, is all the more likely because it is highly doubtful that the donors will always put the well-being of the population ahead of their own economic interests.

Given the unique position of the WHO Director-General and the ability of donors to influence him, it is also understandable that the WHO would like to see the measures adopted by the Director-General not just as recommendations for member states, but as binding measures.

Enforcement possibilities of the WHO

Of course, the WHO has no intervention forces that it can deploy if a signatory state of the IHR does not want to adhere to the WHO orders. But the WHO has other means for this purpose, namely pressure via the other member states: If a member state does not want to implement the specified WHO measures, it is pilloried within the WHO and pressure is exerted through naming and shaming via the compliant member states. The coronavirus pandemic has already shown that this does not fail to have an effect.

Unfortunately, it is to be expected that always enough neighboring member states will follow the WHO’s instructions, because this allows the politicians of these countries to easily shift the responsibility for decisions that are sure to have serious consequences for their own population onto the WHO. After all, the instructions came from the WHO and they “have” to be obeyed.

World Health Organization – YES, but different

In principle, there is certainly nothing wrong with a World Health Organization, because viruses do not stop at national borders. However, the decisions in such an organization should not be made by a single person, but by a group of independent specialists, and even there control mechanisms must be in place, because even specialists can make mistakes.

In addition, it should be sufficient for the WHO to continue to issue recommendations, because if the recommendations are plausible, each Member State will follow them anyway. Binding implementation and pressure on Member States that do not wish to comply with WHO guidelines should therefore be rejected.

There is also no reason why funding should not come from donations. However, these donations must be assured for a longer period of time so that the donations can also be used for long-term planning. Above all, however, they must be at the WHO’s completely free disposal – without the donors being able to exert any influence.

Possibility of objection for the Member States

The aforementioned changes with a great deal of power for the WHO Director-General were adopted. However, each member state has 10 months from the date of the WHO adoption to object to these changes. If an objection is raised, the changes will not come into force for the respective country. So now we still have 5 (!) months. But in most countries, the whole thing is hardly being heard in politics and the media. Why is that, even though the effects of these changes could be so drastic for all of us?

“Not being heard” is understandable for politicians, as it is much more convenient for them that drastic and far-reaching decisions are made by the WHO and not by them. In addition – as has been shown – recommendations by a World Health Organization could of course make sense, but only if this World Health Organization was structured differently to the existing WHO

• with recommendations instead of binding specifications
• that are given by an independent panel of specialists and not by an individual
• and without any influence from the donors.

However, the drastic changes to international health regulations are not only barely heard in politics, but also receive virtually no attention in the media, even though all the relevant information can easily be found on the WHO website. It is therefore completely incomprehensible that almost nothing is reported about it. Why? Shouldn’t it be our journalists’ and media’s job to report on issues that have such serious consequences for us all?

We can only hope that at least now some more attention will be paid to this topic and that it will also be reported on much more than before, because the clock is ticking:

The changes described should come into force in May 2025 if no objection is lodged until March 2025. The member states of the WHO would therefore do well to address this issue now. To wait until the next pandemic arrives might be too late.