Late last year HART was invited to be a co-signatory on an open letter to the relevant Parliamentary scrutiny committees on the much vexed question of increasing WHO powers. The proposals are via a combination of changes to international health regulations, which require only a 51% majority of member states, and a wholescale change to the Treaty, which would require a two thirds majority.
Dr. David Bell, a British public health physician currently working in the U.S., wrote a detailed analysis of the changes here, and it would have been helpful if some of the MPs attending last week’s parliamentary debate had read this or even the WHO document itself before speaking.
The parliamentary debate arose from a petition which had garnered well over the 100,000 signatures required to trigger such an event.
As a representative of HART, I joined Shiraz Akram, lead author from the Thinking Coalition, and Jon Dobinson, another signatory on behalf of Time for Recovery to attend in person. Arriving early, I immediately saw the tireless Piers Corbyn with loudspeaker in hand and a team of leafleteers trying somewhat unsuccessfully to engage the passersby. Unfortunately, constitutional change, completely ignored by mainstream media, doesn’t really grab the attention.
Moving inside through the usual security, we soon encountered the ubiquitous British queue. The first problem for open democracy is that of course the debate was held in one of the committee rooms. The members of the public attending were greater than the number of MPs, with no possibility of moving some of the empty members’ seats into the public area at the back, so some were left waiting outside. Those of us lucky enough to get a seat were all under strict instructions not to heckle nor indeed to clap! This proved too hard for some of the more enthusiastic.
It is well worth watching the whole debate though you may wish to play it on a fast setting (slow it back to normal for Esther McVey who crammed many excellent words into her allotted time).
Alternatively, skim reading on Hansard is a good option or if really short time to Molly Kingsley’s Twitter thread!
The opening speech was by Nick Fletcher MP, from the Petitions Committee. Committee members are under no requirement to promote the views of the petitioners but he was quite measured and I suspect reading the petition had got him thinking about issues of sovereignty he would otherwise have completely overlooked.
Watch the early interjection by John Spellar – the venom of the word ‘antivax’ and the way it is simply used as an alternative to debate are notable. He opened his subsequent speech with, “Part of this argument has been about vaccination. We go back to Dr. Wakefield and that appalling piece of chicanery that was the supposed impact of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which has now been completely exposed and discredited. He is now Mr. Wakefield and no longer a recognised doctor.” The implication was somehow that anyone questioning the wisdom of the WHO should be stripped of the title ‘doctor’ or else what was the relevance of his remarks? He described the “appalling subculture of those who live by conspiracy theories. The anti-vaccine campaign is one of those”.
Then followed an excellent speech by Danny Kruger giving examples of the proposed extension of the regulations.
The WHO’s powers will potentially extend to ordering countries to close borders; to travel restrictions; to the tracing of contacts; to refusal of entry; to forced quarantining; to medical examinations, including requirements for proof of vaccination; and even to the forced medication of individuals. It is not just when a pandemic has already been declared that those powers might be invoked: the WHO claims these powers when there is simply the potential for such an emergency.
As John Redwood aptly put it,:
To colleagues who like this treaty, is the easy answer not that we will, of course, remain members of the WHO, read its advice and accept that advice where we wish? Why should we have to accept advice when the WHO may get it wrong, and we can do nothing about it because it decides, not us?
Danny Kruger pointed out:
Global threats that defy borders require global co-operation, and it is certainly true to say that this country was not sufficiently prepared for the pandemic when it broke out, but I do not believe that the lack of readiness was due to a lack of international co-operation. Indeed, the degree of international co-operation was astonishing. The lack of readiness was in the ordinary business of contingency planning by the British state — the security of supply of equipment, capacity in the health service and our ability to support the vulnerable and the isolating. That is where we were not ready.
In fact, we could say that in a crucial respect the U.K. was prepared. We thought that we knew what we would do in the event of a pandemic. We would introduce targeted isolation and targeted protection of the most vulnerable — the application of personal responsibility, not mass lockdowns, which were not part of the plan — but we threw that plan aside immediately, and we went for exactly what everybody else around the world was doing. Or almost everyone — never forget plucky Sweden.
Justin Madders, Labour, was very worried about conspiracy theories, e.g. “referring to the WHO as ‘globalists’ that ‘drain our resources, serve our enemies, and continue working to establish a global dictatorship over everyone and everything.’ That sentiment is clearly ludicrous, as is the reference to the WHO being owned by Bill Gates or the Chinese Government.”
Worryingly, whatever the motivation, ‘globalists’ is surely correct as is the major financial input from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and the Chinese Government. He went on to mention “descending into the dark world of conspiracy theories that suggest that vaccines do more harm than good”. He might want to reflect on Table S4 of Pfizer’s own six month Safety and Efficacy report!
Read the next speech by Sir Christopher Chope, who has done a detailed dig into the current Director General of WHO, at whose discretion WHO can declare an emergency or even a potential emergency. Tedros Ghebreyesus’ past as a senior figure in the Tigray People’s Liberation Front does not make for reassuring reading.
Although not strictly relevant to the topic of the WHO treaty, Preet Kaur Gill, MP for Birmingham, Edgbaston made one very important request to the minister which has been largely overlooked, namely that:
Advances in gene editing mean that virologists can more easily modify viruses to be deadlier and spread more quickly, increasing the security risk posed by bioweapons and bioterrorism. Will the Minister comment on our concern that the biological weapons convention currently remains very weak, with little funding and only four staff, compared with the 500 staff for the chemical weapons convention?
Most worryingly, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, does not appear to have a full grasp of the proposed changes in the regulations. When asked by Esther McVey, “Can the Minister reassure my constituents who are concerned that the Government will concede sovereignty and hand power to WHO? Can she give reassurances that that will not happen?”. She replied: “Yes, absolutely I can. The speculation that somehow the instrument will undermine U.K. sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures is simply not the case.”
How does Ms Trevelyan explain the removal of the word “non-binding” and the replacement of “should” with “must”? Just check out the proposed changes. The potential reach of the WHO is summed up in this graphic.
If the changes go ahead as proposed, then all signatories will be tied under international law into a straightjacket of groupthink. As Danny Kruger rightly said: “Never forget plucky Sweden!”
Dr. Ros Jones is a retired Consultant Paediatrician with a special interest in neonatal intensive care and paediatric HIV. She is a member of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART), on whose website this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“ Kemi Badenoch said that it was “no time for a reality TV star””
As opposed to the party that brought you lockdowns, covid “vaccines”, the biggest lie in history. OK Kemi. Pull the other one.
Says the gaptoothed Nigerian WEF Young Leadership acolyte.
From Churchill to that.
I have my doubts about Farage and Tice but this is good news if the sheeple are starting to wake up.
You really summed her up perfectly in four words:
“From Churchill to that.”
“Farage is weaker on being a “divisive figure”, his closeness to Donald Trump and whether the party has the intellectual depth to actually form a government.”
LMFAO what you mean like the “intellectual depth” of the current government, or the May/Johnson/Sunak adminstrations? Perhaps you have to go back to Blair and Cameron son of Blair to find intellectual depth, employed in destroying our nation.
What did Sunak actually believe in, apart from Technocracy and CBDCs. He was a spineless little cretin.
Money.
Cameron, intellectual skill?! You gotta be joking.
Yeah, perhaps not. He carried on where Blair left off. Maybe he was just a useful idiot.
Well c’mon, be fair everybody has intellectual skill – some like Cameron just not much.
Blair’s intellectual depth was Campbell.
I think Trump is a positive thing for America, and I suspect he has now sussed what an a***hole Farage is and will distance himself from him.
I agree Trump is positive. Safe bet that Farage would be better than Starmer, though that’s a low bar.
No safe bets where Farage is concerned. He’s betrayed so many already
Trump isn’t a divisive figure, he is a disruptor. Good.
The division credited to him occurred before him, particularly during the reign of His Eminence St Barry of Obama and years of poison dripping out of the Democrat slander machine, and was what created the Trump MAGA movement.
Farage isn’t divisive, that division has been created by successive Governments since the war, first along class lines now ethnic multi-culti lines. “Diversity” means apart, different, unlike.
Farage, like Trump is a creation of that, but I don’t think he is a disruptor – pity.
Yes I generally agree. Politics is about differences of opinion, sometimes strong. We need proper opposition, not a Uniparty.
I would say Trump is more “divisive” than Farage because he’s less polished and DGAF in his manner and attitude. I would also say that Farage played a big part in the “disruption” that was the Brexit referendum.
Trump 2.0 has been better than 1.0, though this is concerning: Hey, At Least We Bombed Somebody – Ann Coulter
Where Trump scores over Farage is that the US seems to have much more vigorous opposition to state overreach.
“Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind”
Is that really something to boast about, the most hated PM only one point behind!
Some good news here too, though it does just say ”delay”, not ”cancel”;
”The Sentencing Council is to delay the introduction of its two-tier guidance after being threatened with emergency legislation to block it by the Government.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/31/sentencing-council-suspends-two-tier-guidelines-backlash/
But if that’s the case, does that mean this no longer applies?
”Transgender and ethnic minority people are being given priority for bail under new guidelines drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.
Judges and magistrates are being told to prioritise those groups because they may be at ‘disproportionately higher risk’ if they are held in custody.
The guidelines asks judges to consider that some defendants may have experienced trauma through racism and discrimination.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14553135/ethnic-minority-suspects-priority-bail.html
He just scrapes past Starmer. Says it all.
What are we to make of those who complain about Reform and Farage.
They are not satisfied that a party relaunched in the face of opposition by the elites and MSM has broken through the support levels of the old parties in under a year.
They query or condemn Farage because he does not exclusively champion their pet issue or does not use language they want – divisive, vote losing language and likely illegal in today’s authoritarian Britain.
Are they elite party agents. Are they determined to be defeated in glory. They have certainly not thought through the way to victory.
For me the jury is out and I will take stock when I need to – at the next General Election. They probably deserve a chance but have not always inspired my confidence. Bear in mind that those of us who are on the political right have been burned and betrayed by Tories who talk a good fight. I do not doubt for a minute your sincerity nor the sincerity of many at grass roots level.
Regarding the “divisive, vote losing language” – Trump got away with it. But perhaps the US is different.
Nonsense. We were all foolish enough to believe in Farage and Reform, even though he had “previous” in destroying two other successful “patriot parties” he set up, until he clearly showed his hand:
He’s going to pull another “Bait & Switch”, called Tommy Robinson “scum” while feigning concern for British children, allowed Yet Another Pakistani Muslim to buy the Reform party, rewrite its rules to allow the Muslim to be elected as Reform party leader in the future by flooding the party with new Muslim members, unjustly “vetted” and banned true patriots for criticising the Invading Muslim Army or Pakistani Muslim Child Rapists, and supported the Muslim and two female “plants” in falsely accusing Rupert Lowe for being too popular with the public.
A Vote for Reform is a Vote for the Caliphate.
My question is can he head a team rather than antagonise anyone who tries to work with him?
That would be a resounding NO. Take a look at Andrew Eborn’s interview of the journalist Martin Jay
https://youtu.be/KFYghpe5OpQ?feature=shared
MJ knows Farage well, and has done for years and even appears to have a bit of a soft spot for him but if even he condemns the man…… Farage is incapable of working with anyone who may prove to be cleverer or more popular that he is, he has to be top dog at all times. You cannot put together a decent team with an attitude like that. The Rupert Lowe saga reveals that it is impossible to sort things out with Farage behind closed doors and RL has been forced to go public. Rupert Lowe’s fate was sealed the moment that Elon Musk declared that he would make a better leader of Reform than Farage and that the latter just wasn’t up to the job. I wonder what Trump thinks of him now? It would be very interesting to know
If you’d had direct experience of working for Reform, you wouldn’t have to ask that question. Yusuf & Farage are also fans of the WEF so beware sheep in wolves’ clothing
No sane person can be fan of the WEF,,,it is run by lunatics.
I think it’s likely Reform will get more votes than any other party at the next general election but if they finish second in a large number of constituencies they might not be the largest party in the next parliament. Even if Reform are the largest party Farage’s chances of becoming the next PM could be pretty slim if the other parties form an “anti populist” coalition as has happened in Germany and Austria.
Given how low the turnout was at the last election Reform needs to put a huge amount of effort into convincing the millions of people that are totally disillusioned with politics/the uniparty that they are sufficiently different that it’s worth voting for them, even if people have never voted before/not voted for a long time.
I cancelled my Reform membership this morning. Letter below …
Can you please cancel my membership.
I believe Nigel Farage to be the most effective political figure since Margaret Thatcher.
So why the resignation? Two reasons.
1. We now have 109 thousand illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are military age Muslim men. By the time of the next election this figure will multiply many times.
2. Rupert Lowe rightly stated they must be detained and deported. Mr Farage has rejected this, further adding he can’t confront Islam. For no reason I can justify, he appointed a Muslim CEO to Reform. I don’t hate Muslims, but Islam, by definition, means ‘submission’. I can no longer be party to a movement led by a Muslim. If this changes, I’ll consider rejoining.
I’d be happy to speak to you further if this helps. I’m sure you’re aware many, if not most of your members feel the same way.
Sincerely
Hats off to you, Neil of Watford, for telling the truth, and backing it up by real action!
Indeed Neil, well said. I resigned from the party a couple of weeks ago – and my goodness don’t they make it difficult! I’ve now put in a Subject Access Request with which they have a month to comply. Since they are now so keen on GDPR and NDAs I thought I’d give them a taste of their own medicine. I’ve also demanded confirmation that their ‘membership’ ticker has been adjusted and my instructions have been followed. I too would be willing to rejoin if Yusuf either resigns or is removed but Farage has proved just how untrustworthy he is too so I’d prefer the ‘party’ to be led by someone else – but of course, since it is still a plc with Farage & Yusuf as the two directors, this seems unlikely. They were supposed to democratise the ‘party’ but merely made it Reform UK (2025) Ltd and as such they don’t have members, they just have subscribers. Weasels the pair of them
Nigel topped the poll, conducted by the French polling company Ipsos, as “best prime minister”, from which Rupert Lowe’s name was excluded, and the article celebrating this was written by Yet Another Muslim, Kamal Ahmed, whose English mother is from Rotherham, World’s First Children’s Capital of Culture (??!!), and Ethnic African Muslim father is from Sudan, one of the countries famous for slaughtering Christians and burning down their churches.
A VOTE FOR REFORM is a VOTE FOR THE CALIPHATE.
Farage is a despicable, dishonourable, lying, egomaniacal, self-serving politician. Surely there is enough information about him now for everyone to realise that, and not vote for any party he and his equally unpleasant co-owner Yusef are involved in. There are other Polls that put Farage at 7% even that is far higher than he should be.
Well what a pity the man is a charlatan and will never cross the finishing line. He’s shown by his treatment of his hitherto greatest asset – Rupert Lowe – that he’s as shallow as a puddle after the sun’s been out for a couple of hours and that he’s incapable of building a team around him. Who on earth would he have in his cabinet? Let’s hope we have some time for an alternative to emerge before the next GE. Ask yourselves why they would want to bring in NDAs for branch officials? What are they trying to hide? I’m sure you’ve seen me post on here previously that I was a branch Treasurer for Reform but I won’t vote for them now whilst Farage & Yusuf are at the helm. I’d rather vote Monster Raving Loony Party or spoil my ballot paper.
Good for you…..it was his behaviour towards Tommy, that damned him, for me.
“Ipsos reveals that when asked who would do a “good job as Prime Minister”, Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind,”
Keir Starmer is just 1% behind? That’s not reassuring. Who are these mindless blobs who think Starmer is doing a “good job”?
I despair.
Government employees and SS benefit winners.