History of WHO
The World Health Organisation in a New Zealand Context | FreeNZ
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has been the specialised health agency of the United Nations since 1946.
New Zealand was one of the first nations to ratify the WHO Constitutionwhich outlines the structure and function of the WHO. New Zealand became a member state within WHO on 10 December 1946.
The WHO Constitution is underpinned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Also written in the aftermath of World War 2, the UDHR codified human rights and equality, aiming to prevent a repeat of the totalitarian and fascist rule which caused so much death and destruction.
WHO’s role has been to advise and support nations in achieving positive health outcomes, with a particular focus on vulnerable populations, and always following the principle of national sovereignty.
WHO has headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, led by an elected Director-General and governed by a World Health Assembly which meets in May each year, where each member state carries one vote. The 194 member states are allocated into six world regions. A staff of over 7,000 are employed across the globe, and each region has its own head office and elected director.
New Zealand is one of 37 nations within the Western Pacific Region (WPRO) whose office and director are based in Manila, Philippines. Fifteen WPRO nations have an in-country office and 28 receive support from WHO. In the two years 2020-2021, New Zealand contributed US$2.78m in assessed contributions and US$7.6m in specified voluntary contributions.
Financial Structure and Influence
Until the late 1990s, the main source of funding to WHO was member dues, known as assessed contributions, calculated upon each nation’s GDP. In the past twenty years, voluntary funding has become increasingly dominant. Voluntary contributions specifying how the money is to be spent now make up 76% of the WHO budget, compared to only 12% from assessed contributions.
Significant voluntary contributions are now made by private foundations and pharmaceutical industry donors.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest voluntary donor today.
These entities, with financial interests in vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics, medical equipment and digital technology, now wield enormous influence over program priorities within WHO.
Since 2005, health programs encompassing entire populations have escalated at the expense of programmes focused on addressing specific health needs. During covid, “public health” was replaced with “product health”. Populations experiencing strict lockdown restrictions were told by an unqualified, unelected billionaire heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry, “normalcy only returns when we’ve largely vaccinated the entire global population”.
Public health practitioners who understood the harms that lockdown would cause tried to oppose the strict measures, but were met with extreme repercussions. Real-world data now shows clearly that lockdown and mass vaccination was not health-driven advice. It did, however, ensure the largest historical redistribution of wealth away from the lower and middle classes, into the billionaire class.
The world’s wealthiest benefited from the destruction of small vendor competitors during lockdown. They also profited hugely from vaccines, from new and untested therapeutics, from screening tests claiming to be diagnostic, from personal protective equipment, from medical supplies and from digital technology such as vaccine passports.
Requiring compliance from entire populations serves a business model that drives profit, whilst at the same time dismantling the human rights and public health ethics upon which WHO was founded.
The New Zealand Health System
New Zealand has not been a recipient of WHO support because our national health system has been deemed to be adequate for the population’s needs. However, to the evolving business model that WHO has now become, New Zealand is viewed as offering five million consumers from whom money can be made.
A case could be argued that through the covid pandemic response, our health system has been sabotaged. Doctors have been removed from the diagnostic process, have lost their right to practise independently, have been discouraged or banned from providing informed consent, have lost their right to hold and share informed professional medical opinions, and have seen their prescribing rights delegated to pharmacists.
Financial rewards were paid to medical centres for interventions such as assisting the vaccinated to upload digital IDs, and to community centres for coordinating vaccination campaigns. Unqualified teenagers were employed to administer novel pharmaceutical injections. Programme delivery remains engulfed by covid protocols, rather than individualised assessment and care by a doctor. These protocols are not supported by the evidence but rather, they help to drive product sales and profit margins.
Rob Gill’s documentary The Great NHS Heist exposes the privatisation of the British National Health Service, which may well explain what is happening to the New Zealand health system as well, as corporate power and profit override population health needs and evidence-based care.
A weakened system may pave the way for WHO to justify becoming involved in health care delivery in New Zealand and may allow for the expansion of AI (artificial intelligence) to replace physicians.
There are clues that this may be what is planned.
Changes Within WHO
New Zealand was represented at the 2022 World Health Assembly in Geneva by a Chief Delegate (Andrew Little), a Deputy Chief Delegate (Ashley Bloomfield) and seven Alternate Delegates from the Ministry of Health and Permanent Mission to the United Nations (see pages 38-39). We also have representation at high-level negotiations to two different legal frameworks. These frameworks are part of the planning for significant constitutional changes within WHO, which will seriously impact the way health care is delivered in New Zealand.
Framework 1: International Health Regulation Amendments
The International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 are an existing international law and a descendant of similar laws which have been in place since WHO’s inception.
The original purpose of these laws was to manage the potential spread of specific infectious diseases of concern across international borders. Initially, six diseases were covered by the regulations, outlining recommendations for quarantine of sick people and clearly balancing these with individual rights, such as not restricting the movement of people identified during contact tracing. Due to the airborne nature of influenza-like illnesses, whereby infected aerosols float on air currents for days, contact tracing has never previously been recommended for diseases such as influenza, covid, RSV, and similar viruses.
The IHR was reviewed after the 2003 SARS pandemic, and changes included an algorithm for a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), broadening the scope to any “illness or medical condition, irrespective of origin or source, that presents or could present significant harm to humans”.
Last year’s World Health Assembly agreed to amend the current IHR under the guidance of a Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) which held its first meeting in November 2022, co-chaired by NZ representative Ashley Bloomfield.
In October 2022, WHO created a separate International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) which contains signed confidentiality clauses and only answers to the Director-General. New Zealand is represented in this group by Andrew Forsyth from the Ministry of Health. The IHRRC appears to have usurped the authority of the WGIHR, and as James Roguski highlights, they are in breach of the WHO Constitution, the preamble of which states on page 1 “Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.” This is supported by public health ethics such as those outlined in the Nuremberg Code (1947), Helsinki Declaration (1964), and Alma Ata Declaration (1978).
There are 300+ proposed amendments, many of which breach the foundational principles of the WHO constitution. Some of the most concerning proposals are summarised in this table.
Framework 2: Pandemic Treaty (WHO CA+)
A new law is being proposed, called the WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, abbreviated to “WHO CA+” and often referred to as the WHO Treaty. The latest draft, 32 pages and dated 1 February 2023 is at this link.
An International Negotiating Body (INB) was established in December 2021, allegedly in response to the “catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic”.
Delegates from six countries, each representing their regional office, are leading the INB. WPRO is represented by Mr Kazuho Taguchi from Japan. This is a screenshot of a New Zealand delegate in attendance at the most recent meetings. Her identity is unclear and names are not provided, illustrating the lack of transparency in this process.
The WHO CA+ intends to be a legally binding convention that will place WHO as the directing and coordinating authority of all health systems. If New Zealand signs up for this, our Ministry of Health will come under the governance of WHO. The language used includes prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of future pandemics, and a new term “inter-pandemic times” has been introduced.
This gives WHO unlimited power.
The focus of this proposed new system is not the health of populations, but the manufacture, distribution and enforced administration or use of multiple, highly profitable products. This is intimately tied to a famous interview with Bill Gates at Davos in 2020, in which he boasted a 20:1 return on investment from his vaccine company shares.
At the same time, in order to impose this system, billions of dollars are being sought, which are likely to be collected via taxes from citizens in those nations who sign into the agreement. So far the draft makes no mention of accountability for the ways in which this money would be spent.
Article 17 of the document outlines the intent of WHO to control information, managing “info-demics” and counteracting “misinformation, disinformation and false news”.
The ‘One Health’ concept introduced at Article 18 of the document integrates alleged concern for human health into a need for control over the drivers of pandemics, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and increased risks at the human-animal-environment interface due to human activities”.
These examples show an intent to assume the right to impose rules and regulations over all aspects of our lives, such as the opinions we hold, freedom of speech, the way we use our land, the food we choose to grow and/or eat, and if, where and how we travel
New Zealanders need to become informed urgently, about what is being planned on our behalf by unelected bureaucrats. We must each insist that they be held accountable, as our representatives.
There is no transparency in the process currently underway. Be warned. This will put the World Health Organisation in control of our health system, which is already being dismantled. Worse still, WHO could potentially control our entire way of life.
We speak with child and family health nurse Helen Tindall about the dangers of the WHO's Pandemic treaty.
The World Health Organisation and Covid-19: Re-Establishing Colonialism in Public Health, a June 2021 report written by a professor of history and a public health physician for Panda (www.pandata.org) explaining the mechanisms of WHO and the planned constitutional changes.
In-depth research by health advocate and independent journalist James Roguski is available at www.stopthewho.com. Roguski is following events closely and reporting regularly, including a daily meeting with open invitation, at 4pm NZ time (see Meeting 2 link here).
World Council for Health share a lot of information regarding the Treaty.
New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science publish articles on many topics including the World Health Organisation, Treaty and IHR amendments.
Redacted News featured useful details about the Treaty in a 25 February 2023 news item.
On Sunday 26 February 2023 at WHO headquarters, a cease and desist notice was served in regards to the unlawful implementation of the WHO CA+, IHR amendments and ‘any and all other documents, standards or agreements allegedly related to public health’. This common law action was led by Pascal Najadi, a Swiss financier attempting legal action against the harms taking place under the guise of public health. Learn more at this link.
WHO (NGO) with (constitution) which is legally binding (claim) through IHR (not legally tested)
NGO's don't (can't) have (legally binding) constitutions (racket/extort)
None the less with 194 + 2 following and implementing using domestic legislations it becomes a moot point if not legally challenged (presumably under TPPA like special master tribunal) outside of legal jurisdiction based in NYC or discarded and exited in totality (blowback).
A private organization thinks it can make up laws haha
They want people ignorant in fear.
Just dont believe these ideas as the UN and their WHO are evil central bankster toolies need to be exposed and ignored not have their ideas thought about( strengthened) or obeyed.
I dont know about you but I have no contract with the UN or the WHO.(or the NZ govt/State).