https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
The IHR 2005 adopted by 194 member states of the WHO allow the WHO to declare Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) if it decides that an infectious disease outbreak has occurred in a member state, but still recognises the sovereignty of member nations. On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General – even over the objection of the member state. The Director-General communicated the text of the proposed amendments on 20th January 2022, via a circular letter to State Parties.
The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
The sanctions are the most alarming part to me. Economic? Wouldn't happen in a democracy? Trudeau already proved that it can. Could these be localised sanctions on individuals?
Enabled by this:
https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/archive/covid-19-who-commissions-t-systems-648634
Couple that with the Bank of International Settlements estimate, 90% of nations planning CBDC (central bank digital currency). There is a "programmability" aspect that rarely gets discussed when the fluffy benefit pieces are set out. Hypotheticals, you're deemed overweight by your GP, you can't spend any more money on crisps or beer this month. You've used too much fuel this month, can't spend anymore at the petrol station. You're in lockdown? Can't spend any money here as your 5 miles from home. I'm not saying that is what/how they will be used, it makes it 100% possible and easy, even if you believe that this government or this entity wouldn't do that. What about the next one?
"Digital cash could be programmed to ensure it is only spent on essentials, or goods which an employer or Government deems to be sensible There could be some socially beneficial outcomes from that, preventing activity which is seen to be socially harmful in some way"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/21/bank-england-tells-ministers-intervene-digital-currency-programming/
Bank for International Settlements head Agustin Carstens about CBDC and control
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNnTuK5JJU
It's all there it's all real. The only thing you can do is call me a nutter cos I don't believe it's in my or my children's best interests- that's subjective. I think it's nuts to think anything good can come out of this- subjective.
Edited to add if you want to read the Telegraph article turn off JavaScript or use archive.is or something similar.