<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=792375415521163&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
4 min read

Preparing for Future Pandemics & Health Emergencies

Featured Image

Have your say!

It's time to shed light on a matter that affects every one of us, no matter our walk of life. Our government is on the brink of making a decision that could have chilling consequences for our health, freedom, privacy, animals and the environment we hold dear.

Why should you care? Because this isn't just another government decision; it's a direct threat to our freedoms and our way of life. They're pushing for mandatory surveillance and control, and that's something straight out of a dystopian nightmare.

If you have some opinions on the harms of censorship, we encourage you to please make a submission: https://consultations.health.gov.au/health-systems-policy-division/preparing-for-pandemics-and-health-emergencies/

Below are the three questions in this survey, with some points to help you get your response started. Choose the ones that resonate with you the most and answer in your own words, to genuinely express why we must not allow this process to dictate our future and the future of our children.

  1. How can international cooperation be improved to more effectively prevent, prepare for, and respond to, future pandemics and other international health emergencies? 

International and local agencies that co-ordinate a response to health emergencies, must be free from conflicts of interest.

  • They cannot profit or make commercial gain from an emergency response. Corporate donors, including many that profited from Covid-19 provide 84% of The W.H.O’s funding.
  • The proposed amendments and pandemic treaty promote regulatory capture leaving the foxes guarding the very profitable henhouse!

    There is no recognition of the errors of the Covid-19 response.

  • To prevent and better respond to future pandemics those mistakes must be acknowledged and understood
  • Reverting to the evidence based pandemic plans that were ignored in the response to Covid-19 must be among the plans for better response.
  • The emphasis on control of the population and expanded use of expedited “vaccines”, while removing human rights is not a health-based response.
  • Worldwide excess mortality since the deployment of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines must be examined to ensure any future response does not cause extensive health issues. First do no harm.

Australian sovereignty:

  • The consultation paper is not consistent with the demands of Article 4 of the IHR Amendments. Article 4 (https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf) expressly states that “States Parties shall enact or adapt legislation to provide National IHR Focal Points with the authority and resources to perform their functions….. in implementing the obligations under these Regulations”.
  • If the Amendments are already legally binding why are the words “non-binding” being removed from Article 1 of the IHR Amendments.
  • These words have been added to the Amendments shall (79 times); must (14 times); surveillance (18 times); control (33 times).
  • The promotion of wellbeing including natural and preventative healthcare is not referenced in any of these changes.
  • There is no recognition of natural immunity in the documents.
  1. What issues do you think need to be prioritised to guide the world’s future preparation for, and responses to, future pandemics and other international health emergencies?
  • A “one size fits all”, top-down approach to health is not in the best interests of Australia or any other country. All nations have unique health challenges. All nations should oversee their individual challenges.
  • The evidence based pandemic plans that did not support many of the measures that were known to be ineffective but that were employed in the Covid-19 response must be revisited.
  • Removing of the venture-capital approach to benefit W.H.O. donors contained in the IHR Amendments and Pandemic Treaty.
  • Expanding the powers of the WHO to ensure they and their donors detect, declare, prescribe and profit from any perceived health threat is not in the best interest of Australians.
  • Allowing and encouraging all long recognised safe treatments for any viral complaint will result in much improved health outcomes and response than during Covid-19.
  • Enforcement, via binding protocols, of experimental drugs, vaccines and treatments to the exclusion of all else must never be allowed to happen on a mass scale ever again.
  • Informed consent and the right to bodily autonomy are not negotiable in a free society and the Nuremberg Code came into being to combat past abuse of power.
  1. Is there any other information you would like to provide that might help to guide Australia’s
    engagement on a new international pandemic instrument and changes to the IHR?
  • Any amendments that impact negatively the human rights of Australians must be rejected.
  • The cost benefit analysis of Australia’s commitment and financial support to The W.H.O must be made and acted upon before any new threats to the health of Australians. . Australians must know of all financial commitments to The W.H.O. upfront.
  • In recent history The W.H.O. has not earned the right or trust to be making the request within the Zero Draft PPPR to enlarge their budget by $30 billion a year, more than 5 x their current annual budget.