To Whom it May Concern
My reading of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations was reinforced by the diverse panel respondents to the 6/20/23 Stakeholder Listening Session.
First, regarding the proposed deletion in Article 3 of the language of human dignity and rights with the replacement of “equity and inclusion” is a grave affront to democracy and two hundred years of progress on human rights. Equity and inclusion are not the same as human autonomy and dignity. The proposed deletion of the language of human rights signifies authoritarianism of the worst form imaginable, regardless of intentions. Efforts to delete the language of human dignity and rights will defeat the legitimacy and global acceptance of the IHR and WHO.
Second, Article 1’s proposed “mandatory” framework violates national sovereignty and will reinforce public perceptions globally that changes are designed to create a non-democratic and invasive system of control under the power of unelected officials who are susceptible to capture by commercial interests benefiting from centralized power to declare emergencies and their protocols of remediation.
Third, I echo the concerns of listening session panelists regarding proposed plans to create a global, digital system for monitoring the health and governing the mobilities of human bodies. The proposed surveillance not only violates individual privacy, but also threatens freedom of movement and the capacities of individuals, both to achieve economic self-sufficiency and to pursue happiness. This proposed global digital panopticon threatens human dignity and human rights.
The history of corruption in medicine is a subject I am quite familiar with having contributed to its documentation through my academic scholarship. The proposed changes to the IHR open the door for unprecedented surveillance and domination of individuals. They risk reducing humans to chattel, subject to economic exploitation by commercial interests (e.g., by “health” industry) and political subjugation should individuals’ expressed opinions be deemed “misinformation” or “disinformation” or simply politically embarrassing.
The matter of pandemic bonds issued by the WHO was not explicitly addressed by panelists, but I believe is an important illustration of how economic self-interests can conflict with the public good.
To be entirely honest, I have never been more shocked and alarmed by the ruthless consolidation of governance demonstrated by efforts to shed the language of inalienable human rights under the guise of “health security.”
The lack of transparency regarding updates to proposed revisions reinforces public opinion that they are not in the public interest and reflect the priorities of unelected and commercially biased entities.
Sincerely,
Majia Nadesan, PhD
