THE ANSWER IS NO!
The Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) revealed that they are unlikely to meet their deadline, so they are trying to reinterpret Article 55 of the IHR.
BREAKING NEWS:
The Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) admitted today that they believe that they may not be able to complete their work before the deadline set by Article 55 of the International Health Regulations.
In my humble opinion, they are trying to reinterpret [break] the rules.
THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!
Please watch the video below…
Transcript:
26:10 Dr. Abdulla Asiri (Saudi Arabia)
Dear colleagues,
We have been operating with the understanding that the package of the proposed amendments resulting from the work of this group would be finalized by January 2024 to meet the four month deadline stated in Article 55.
However, we believe that we all share the same sentiment that, realistically, the whole package of amendments will probably not be ready by January 2024.
We would like to ask the Secretariat whether procedurally we could continue working until the 76th [77th?] World Health Assembly in May 2024.
I’d like to ask the Secretariat to provide some guidance in this matter.
27:00 Stephen Solomon (WHO Secretariat legal counsel)
Thank you co-chair.
The Health Assembly, in decision WHA75/9 requested the working group, and I quote, “to establish a program of work consistent with decision EB150(3), and taking into consideration the report of the IHR Review Committee, to propose a package of targeted amendments for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations.”
Article 55 of the IHR, which is referred to in decision WHA75/9 sets out two procedural requirements relating to proposed amendments.
The first one is that “proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.”
The second one is that “the text of any such proposed amendment shall be communicated to all states parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.”
Again, that’s the text of the relevant article of the IHR, Article 55.
Article 55 of the IHR, including this four month requirement, has never been applied to amendments submitted collectively by a sub-division of the Health Assembly, which is exactly what the WGIHR is.
The WGIHR is a subdivision of the Health Assembly under rule 41 [40?] of the Rules of Procedure of the Health Assembly.
Thus, there are no precedents to rely on with respect to the manner in which the four month requirement set out in Article 55 should be satisfied.
That is to say, Article 55 has been applied to amendments proposed by a state party or by the Director-General, but never by a sub-division of the Health Assembly.
Indeed, it has only been applied with respect to, um, ah, it has not been applied with respect to any sub-division.
This is a first.
Accordingly, an option for consideration by the Working Group, would be for the Director-General to communicate in January 2023 [2024?] the following documents to all states parties:
First, the proposed amendments as originally submitted by member states and already communicated by the Secretariat to all states parties by email, and
Second, the proposed amendments as they might be shown on the screen at the closure of WGIHR/6.
This approach would allow work to continue in the WGIHR, if necessary, up until the 77th Health Assembly itself, recognizing the importance of complementarity with the INB process which, as we know, is mandated to work up until the 77th WHA.
In addition to that, the Working Group may consider requesting the Secretariat to include, in the January communication from the Director-General, a clarification according to which the amendments from the final session of the WGIHR, which could be, conceivably, as late as May, 2024, if necessary, would allow these final results of the May, of such a session, to be formally submitted to the 77th World Health Assembly.
A note on this deadline of the 77th World Health Assembly. If the deadline is not met, the WGIHR would be expected to report to the Health Assembly in May 2024 that agreement could not be reached on the proposed amendments.
This deadline cannot be changed as it was set out in decision WHA75/9.
This approach just outlined for your consideration would fulfill the four month requirement in its purpose as proscribed by Article 55 of the IHR, while at the same time allowing the Working Group to continue its consideration and negotiation of the proposed amendments, including possible modifications to the package that would be communicated to the States Parties.
Should this approach be considered satisfactory, the Working Group may wish to consider reflecting it in the report of this session of the WGIHR.
Thank you co-chairs.
SOURCE:
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-5.html
ThePeoplesDeclaration.com
ExitTheWHO.org
ExitTheWHO.com
StopTheGlobalAgenda.com
StopTheAmendments.com
StopTheWHO.com
ScrewTheWHO.com
MaskCharade.com
RejectDigitalEnslavement.com
HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com
PreventGenocide2030.org
DoorToFreedom.org
James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
This is getting way too convoluted to me and I think for many others. Maybe it's time to start aiming and speaking about ONE single goal and forget about everything else:
DEPARTURE FROM THE W.H.O.
Forget about everything else.
Mr. Roguski
You may be already aware of this, but because its results could be so momentous, I feel obligated to tell you.
RFK, Jr., when asked by JJ Couey in a zoom meeting a couple of months ago, with a group including Dr. Mercola, Mikki Willis, Dr. Tenpenny, and several others, his position on whether he would Exit the WHO as President, replied that "The WHO helps many poor countries." "So, I WILL NEGOTIATE WITH THE WHO FROM WITHIN."
Also, about a month ago, in a video interview, when again asked whether he would Exit the WHO as President, again said, "I WILL NEGOTIATE WITH THE WHO FROM WITHIN TO MAKE CHANGES." He added that if, and only if, our negotiations from within the WHO were not successful, would he consider Exiting the WHO.
Very surprisingly, in her Substack within the last week, Dr. Meryl Nass, of all people, took the position in both the body and the title of her Substack, that we could/should SLOW DOWN the WHO versus Exiting the WHO, when JFK, Jr. became President. She was referring to our negotiating from within the WHO.
Several of us questioned in the Comments, her surprising SHIFT from her previous, clear position that WE MUST EXIT THE WHO, (not to mention her voluminous work in support of our exiting the WHO), to suggesting that as a Member, we could/should "slow down the WHO."
I engaged her in a somewhat lengthy dialogue in the Comments about her SHIFT in position, and whether her shift was related to RFK, Jr. and his position on the WHO. Among a number of other comments, she stated that "RFK, Jr. will do the right thing." She said that we have future opportunities in upcoming months to argue against the IHR Amendments, and to vote against them. She added that, "You just don't understand the documents."
In consternation, several us replied that the WHO will never negotiate, and words to the effect that, "That ship has already sailed," and added, "WE MUST EXIT THE WHO."
Perhaps I'm missing something, because I know of Dr. Nass's clear and strong position she expressed in her writings that WE MUST EXIT THE WHO.
I hope you will be able to take a look at this.