On May 27th, Italy will also be called to express its opinion at the WHO World Assembly on the New Pandemic Treaty e on amendments to International Health Regulations (IHR). This is an extremely important issue that is rarely talked about, but which could radically change not only the face of the WHO, but also that of the signatory countries and consequently of our societies. Unfortunately, the negotiations are taking place behind closed doors not transparent and with serious irregularities because the text that will be asked to be approved has not been presented to the Member States at least four months in advance, as per the WHO Regulation.
A draft of the Plan dating back to 1 February 2023 (Provisional agenda item 3) is available on the official website but the work continued without the new versions being shared publicly. In the drafts circulated – and not easily available – the changes concern the very role the WHO would acquire full powers with the possibility of making its recommendations binding for the States, imposing – even just in anticipation of potential pandemics – heavy restrictions, with censorship on freedom of expression and information, limitations on freedom of treatment, prohibition or vice versa obligation on the use of certain drugs, as well as restrictions on freedom of movement, as experienced during the lockdowns, with serious risks for national sovereignty and democracy itself.
On a problem of this importance, information is almost totally lacking, as is adequate debate, and Italian public opinion is therefore largely at a lossobscure about the thing. Already in recent months the independent Medical Scientific Commission of which I am part (a commission created 20 months after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, in opposition to the official technical-scientific committee) had drawn up detailed press releases, delivered to all parliamentarians and decision makers politicians to inform on these issues. On April 19th we organized an international conference in Rome entitled “Perspectives of the World Health Organization: from an orientation body to a world government?”, news reported by Adnkronos.
Present were speakers from five continents including leading experts in health policies, such as Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, inspirer of the Great Barrington Declaration and Masanori Fukushima, Professor Emeritus of Kyoto University, Director of the Translational Research Center for Medical Innovation, and of the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation, involved in understanding reactions adverse effects from mRNA vaccines on the population and the significant excess mortality from all cancers that is being recorded in Japan.
Also present were politicians, such as Sen. Thomas Presslypromoter of a law approved unanimously by the Senate of Louisiana which rejects any interference by supranational bodies on its territory, Ralph Babet, Australian senator, who approved the start of an official inquiry into the causes of the excess mortality which is occurring in Australia and Reginald MJ Oduor, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies of the University of Nairobi, in Kenya, member of the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group Fai, a group of academics and health experts who is trying to raise awareness in Africa of the threats that the WHO Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the IHR pose to national health and sovereignty.
Here the profiles of the speakers e here the recording of the entire conference.
We are faced, in my opinion, with increasingly worrying censorship, which is also taking place in countries that boast the greatest freedom of information such as France, where the National Assembly recently approved a bill according to which “The induction […] of anyone suffering from a pathology to abandon or abstain from following medical therapy or prophylaxis is punished with 1 year of imprisonment and a fine of €30,000 if it is presented as beneficial for the health of the interested party”, which can be increased to three years in prison and 45,000 euros of fine. The article is designed to counteract sectarian aberrations, but also lends itself to sanctioning those who, for example, advise against vaccination or propose a different medical therapy from those officially recognized.
Unfortunately, in the years of the recent pandemic, what happened to illustrious scientists and researchers who expressed themselves, on the basis of scientific evidence, in a way that was dissonant with official positions was well documented and this cannot leave us at peace. In the face of all this – I believe – the Rome Conference undoubtedly represented a courageous example of information and scientific debate, in the supreme interest not only of public health, but of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and information which, we cannot delude ourselves, are been conquered once and for all.
