Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Health

World Health Organization negotiating to take control “when the next event with pandemic potential strikes”

Published

5 minute read

From Dr. John Campbell on Youtube

British Health Researcher Dr. John Campbell is raising the alarm about the latest moves by the World Health Organization to consolidate authority over governments all around the world.

As argued in UK Parliament, the World Health Organization is asking for a vast transfer of power and some MP’s are very much in favour of ceding power to the WHO.

In this video, Dr. Campbell outlines new regulations countries are currently negotiating to hand over vast new responsibilities to the WHO.  The treaties would put the World Health Organization in charge – not just of the global health response, but of what information is shared, and how that information is shared.  The regulations would also allow the WHO to take control not just in the event of a health emergency, but in the event of any emergency that could potentially impact public health.

From the commentary notes of Dr. John Campbell.


Countries from around the world are currently working on negotiating and/or amending two international instruments, which will help the world be better prepared when the next event with pandemic potential strikes.

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) https://inb.who.int to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (commonly known as the Pandemic Accord).

Amendments to the International Health Regulations https://www.who.int/teams/ihr/working…) https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_fil… to amend the current International Health Regulations (2005) https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/ https://www.who.int/publications/i/it… 66 2005 articles

Underlined and bold = proposal to add text

Strikethrough = proposal to delete existing text (cut and paste does not copy strike through so I’ve put them in comic sans)

Article 1 Definitions

“standing recommendation” means non-binding advice issued by WHO

“temporary recommendation” means non-binding advice issued by WHO

Article 2 Scope and purpose including through health systems

readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk – all risks – with a potential to impact public health,

Article 3 Principles

The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons

Article 4 Responsible authorities

each State Party should inform WHO about the establishment of its National Competent Authority responsible for overall implementation of the IHR that will be recognized and held accountable

Article 5 Surveillance

the State Party may request a further extension not exceeding two years from the Director-General,

who shall make the decision refer the issue to World Health Assembly which will then take a decision on the same

WHO shall collect information regarding events through its surveillance activities

Article 6 Notification

No sharing of genetic sequence data or information shall be required under these Regulations.

Article 9: Other Reports

reports from sources other than notifications or consultations

Before taking any action based on such reports, WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring

Article 10 Verification

whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.

Article 11 Exchange of information

WHO shall facilitate the exchange of information between States Parties and ensure that the Event Information Site For National IHR Focal Points offers a secure and reliable platform

Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, until such time as when: (e) WHO determines it is necessary that such information be made available to other States Parties to make informed, timely risk assessments.

 

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Fraser Institute

Policymakers in Ottawa and Edmonton maintain broken health-care system

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

What’s preventing these reforms? In a word, Ottawa.

To say Albertans, and indeed all Canadians, are getting poor value for their health-care dollars is a gross understatement. In reality, Canada remains among the highest spenders on health care in the developed world, in exchange for one of the least accessible universal health-care systems. And while Canadians are increasingly open to meaningful reform, policymakers largely cling to their stale approach of more money, platitudes and little actual change.

In 2021 (the latest year of available data), among high-income universal health-care countries, Canada spent the highest share of its economy on health care (after adjusting for age differences between countries). For that world-class level of spending, Canada ranked 28th in the availability of physicians, 23rd in hospital beds, 25th in MRI scanners and 26th in CT scanners. And we ranked dead last on wait times for specialist care and non-emergency surgeries.

This abysmal performance has been consistent since at least the early 2000s with Canada regularly posting top-ranked spending alongside bottom-ranked performance in access to health-care.

On a provincial basis, Albertans are no better off. Alberta’s health-care system ranks as one of the most expensive in Canada on a per-person basis (after adjusting for population age and sex) while wait times in Alberta were 21 per cent longer than the national average in 2023.

And what are governments doing about our failing health-care system? Not much it seems, other than yet another multi-billion-dollar federal spending commitment (from the Trudeau government) and some bureaucratic shuffling (by the Smith government) paired with grandiose statements of how this will finally solve the health-care crisis.

But people aren’t buying it anymore. Canadians increasingly understand that more money for an already expensive and failing system is not the answer, and are increasingly open to reforms based on higher-performing universal health-care countries where the public system relies more on private firms and entrepreneurs to deliver publicly-funded services. Indeed, according to one recent poll, more than six in 10 Canadians agree that Canada should emulate other countries that allow private management of public hospitals, and more than half of those polled would like increased access to care provided by entrepreneurs.

What’s preventing these reforms?

In a word, Ottawa. The large and expanding federal cash transfers so often applauded by premiers actually prevent provinces from innovating and experimenting with more successful health-care policies. Why? Because to receive federal transfers, provinces must abide by the terms and conditions of the Canada Health Act (CHA), which prescribes often vaguely defined federal preferences for health policy and explicitly disallows certain reforms such as cost-sharing (where patients pay fees for some services, with protections for low-income people).

That threat of financial penalty discourages the provinces from following the examples of countries that provide more timely universal access to quality care such as Germany, Switzerland, Australia and the Netherlands. These countries follow the same blueprint, which includes patient cost-sharing for physician and hospital services (again, with protections for vulnerable populations including low-income individuals), private competition in the delivery of universally accessible services with money following patients to hospitals and surgical clinics, and allowing private purchases of care. Yet if Alberta adopted this blueprint, which has served patients in these other countries so well, it would risk losing billions in health-care transfers from Ottawa.

Finally, provinces have seemingly forgot the lesson from Saskatchewan’s surgical initiative, which ran between 2010 and 2014. That initiative, which included contracting out publicly financed surgeries to private clinics, reduced wait lists in Saskatchewan from among the highest in the country to among the shortest. And when the initiative ended, wait times began to grow again.

The simple reality of health care in every province including Alberta is that the government system is failing despite a world-class price tag. The solutions to this problem are known and increasingly desired by Canadians. Ottawa just needs to get out of the way and allow the provinces to genuinely reform the way we finance and deliver universal health care.

Continue Reading

Community

Last Day: What would you do with $20,000 Early Bird Prize?

Published on

$20,000 could go a long way!  Want to find out what it would be like to win that much cash? Your chance to win is waiting, but only until 11:59pm TODAY.

BUY ONLINE NOW!

You might be the lucky person to win $20,000 CASH! 
Your ticket will also be entered for many more prizes, including our Sorento Custom Dream Home package and Tree Hugger Tiny Home Package! 

CHECK OUT OUR GREAT TICKET PACKAGES
$25 EACH | 5 FOR $100

10 FOR $125 | 25 FOR $250

There’s over $1.29 Million in prizing to be won.

MEGA BUCKS 50 IS BACK!

DON’T FORGET!

BUY ONLINE NOW!

Thank you so much for your support, and best of luck in the draws. 
CALL RED DEER & AREA OR TOLL FREE
403.340.1878      1.877.808.9005
Continue Reading

Trending

X