WHO. Changes and missing debate

On 1 June 2024, during the 77th session of the planet wellness Assembly, amendments to the global wellness Regulations (IHR) were adopted, expanding the competence of the planet wellness Organisation (WHO), at the expense of the sovereignty of the associate States making up it. The amendments were adopted with gross disregard for the established protocol and procedures, ignoring the provisions of Article 55(2) IHR. If Poland does not object to changes by 1 April 2025 or rejects them, they will enter into force automatically.

The planet wellness Organization (WHO) is simply a United Nations agency that deals with global public wellness issues, set up to live with the best intentions to aid coordinate responses to major wellness problems and decently advise governments.

WHO background

It was founded on 7 April 1948, 2 years later it had 60 associate States, this number increased to 103 in 1960, and in 1980 the WHO had 154 members. Poland – then a folk 1 – brought to the WHO by Comrade Birut, by joining the authoritarian associate States in the majority of the organisations. In the 1980s, the majority of WHO members – as much as 64% – constituted states with a regime. present the situation is small better. In 2023, according to Democracy Index The Economist Intelligence Unit, out of 167 countries in the WHO, only 14.4% of countries were classified as "full democracy", 29.9% of countries were designated as alleged defective democracies and the another countries were hybrid regimes (20.4% of countries ranked), and authoritarian regimes35.3% of associate States In total, the government states are 55.7%.

The WHO can make global rights, existing members, without the request to ratify resolutions or resolutions, laws that come into force by a decision of most non-democratic states. An example is global wellness Regulations (IHR), a binding instrument of global law for associate States that creates rights and obligations for all of them. Of course, the effectiveness of the agreements requires consent from members, but this agreement is expressed in the alleged opt-out procedure, which means that if any State does not notify the rejection or the message of objections, then after the deadline laid down in the resolution, the agreement becomes automatically binding, without debate and the request for ratification by Parliament.

For decades we have witnessed a crucial change in the noble trend in the intent of the mission of advising on wellness issues, due to the fact that fund streams They're moving in the direction private financing. This led to the WHO becoming a much more centralised and externally guided body in which private and corporate funders make and manage programs. A noble mission to advise on wellness issues has been disrupted for many years scandals financial and personnel that contact WHO.

WHO – controversy

WHO is an institution where there is simply a immense conflict of interest. It is infiltrated by pharmaceutical companies and global foundations and funded by donations from corporations and NGOs that affect WHO policies, making it beneficial for them.

WHO works for alleged relevant stakeholdersmarginalizing the needs of average people. Efforts to improve wellness are ignored for activities that are to benefit sponsors, including pharmaceutical companies. The organization is dominated by bureaucrats and technocrats, not by competent wellness professionals who care for patients and aid them preserve and improve their health.

It is excessively dependent on a pharmaceutical, medical and infirmary complex that practices medicine to mask symptoms alternatively than a real improvement in health.

Under the influence of vaccine manufacturers and promoters, the WHO has lost sight of its main nonsubjective of promoting health, and has placed an excessive emphasis on the usage of vaccines that have not improved and even worsened the overall wellness of billions of people worldwide.

Decisions, advice or recommendations made by the WHO can have a immense impact on profits for pharmaceutical companies, by creating lucrative outlets for their wellness products in developing countries.

The completion of the WHO painting is the character of her boss, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, far-left policywho was part of a violent government in Ethiopia, accused by human rights organisations of systematic torture, disappearance and repression of the media and civilian society. Tedros was a associate of the EPRDF, a coalition of leftist parties that ruled Ethiopia until 2019, erstwhile the coalition changed its name to the Prosperity Party. His candidacy was pushed by Communist China, and supported the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

WHO – Finance

The budget of the planet wellness Organisation for 2020-2021 was $7.5 billion. The budget for the years 2024-2025 is already $11.1 billion.

The WHO has not always had specified a strong political and unchangeable financial position. In 1950, the WHO budget came solely from membership contributions. In a fewer decades, this backing stream has run out. In consequence to the politicisation of the UN agendas, specified as the WHO, major donors introduced a policy of zero real growth in the budgets of the UN agendas in 1980 and zero nominal growth in 1993.

In the 1990s, the organization was plagued by scandal behind scandal. Deprived of public funds, she began to trust mostly on voluntary donations from donor countries, but mostly from private philanthropists, companies and NGOs. Unlike contributions, individual donors can allocate non-budget funds to any purpose. In 1970, these private contributions represented a 4th of the agency's budget. By 2008, they accounted for almost 80 percent. Currently, this is over 85% of the WHO budget.

It is reasonable to ask whether the WHO continues to form the global wellness agenda or whether its sponsors do so.

According to interior papers obtained by The Associated Press,

The UN wellness Agency routinely spends around $200 million a year on travel-related spending, an amount higher than the WHO spends on tackling major public wellness problems, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.

WHO – Impact on wellness Policy

The WHO recommendations have a immense impact on the citizens of associate States in many aspects of life.

• ICD — global Classification of Diseases

ICD (International Classification of Diseases) is simply a strategy for classifying diseases and wellness problems developed by the planet wellness Organization. It is utilized worldwide to code diseases, symptoms, abnormal test results, patient complaints, social circumstances and causes of external injuries or diseases.

On 1 January 2022, the WHO officially implemented a fresh global classification of diseases and disorders – ICD-11, which replaced the existing ICD-10 classification. The erstwhile ICD version was valid for 30 years. The fresh classification brings crucial changes. sex in biological terms (maleness and femininity) has been replaced by the discretionary, fluid and subjective word ‘gender’ (multivariant ‘female felt’) and ‘sex attributed at birth’. sex identity disorders, now defined as "sexual non-compliance", are included in the fresh classification in the fresh category No. 17: "sexual health".

Created category of harmless pedophilia, replacing pedophilia with the word ‘pedophile disorder’ (which occurs in the classification under code 6D32) classified only erstwhile ‘pedophilic activities’ disturb someone, are permanent and externalised in their behaviour. This opens the door to social tolerance for “pedophile feelings’.

Sexual disorders are now defined as ‘paraphilic disorders’. What was formerly referred to as “sexual deviation’‘sexual perversion’, ‘sexual perversion’ It's a sexual preference disorder now., a kind of sexual disorder in which “the occurrence of sexual excitement and full sexual satisfaction depends on the appearance of circumstantial objects (or persons), rituals or situations not forming part of average sexual stimulation. These can be long-term, recurrent, strong, sexually stimulating fantasies, sexual motives or behaviors that include different objects, actions or situations (impersonal objects, suffering or humiliation, children, unspeakable consent of the person) and origin clinically crucial discomfort or deterioration in social, commercial or another crucial field of functioning."

Paraphilic disorders, which in ICD-10 called sexual preference disorders, in ICD-11 remained in the chapter on intellectual disorders, where fetishism (F65.0) and fetishistic transvestiticism (F65.1) were removed, due to the fact that they did not origin suffering or harm, so it was decided that they should no longer be considered intellectual disorders.

• Health education – sexual education from an early age

In 1948, the planet wellness Organisation adopted a holistic definition of wellness as follows: "Health is simply a condition full of physical, intellectual and social well-being, not just a deficiency of illness or disability".

In the 1970s, WHO began to see that sexuality affects mental, emotional and social health. In 1974, a sexual definition appeared in a paper entitled Education and Treatment in Human Sexuality: The Training of wellness Professionals: "Sexual wellness is simply a combination of somatic, emotional, intellectual and social aspects of sexual life in a way that greatly enriches and emphasizes personality, communication methods and love."

Early in the 21st century Sexual wellness has formally become part of the WHO definition of healthwhich is included in the reports and papers of the organisation. Sexuality has begun to be seen as the right of all man to sexual life, which is satisfying, safe and free from coercion, discrimination and violence.

In 2002, a fresh definition was agreed: “Sexual wellness is physical, emotional and social welfare in relation to sexuality; it is not simply a deficiency of disease, dysfunction or disability. Sexual wellness requires a affirmative and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the anticipation of having enjoyable and safe sexual experiences, should be free from coercion, discrimination and violence. In order to accomplish and keep sexual health, sexual rights should be respected, protected and fulfilled."

World wellness Organisation developed an educational programme containing guidance for kindergartens and primary schools called ‘Standards of Sexual Education in Europe. Basic recommendations for decision-makers and education and wellness professionals, which can be found in the draft MEN regulation on "health education" and which many critics mention to as sexualisation of children from an early age. The preceding recommendations read: "It is essential that young people learn about sexuality both in terms of the risks it poses and in terms of enriching their lives. The aim is to make a affirmative and liable attitude towards sexuality.which will let them to be liable not only for themselves but besides for another people who are members of the society in which they live."

“Young People” as defined by WHO is children aged 0 to 4 years who they should know what masturbation is and make interest in their own and another bodies; they are children aged from 4 to 6 years old learn about masturbation and are encouraged to express themselves sexual needs and wishes; this 9-year-old childrento be taught sexual intercourse, net pornography, secret love and self-stimulation; this dage 9 to 12 years should have first sexual experience and learn to usage net pornography.

• One Health

In 2010, the WHO concluded that the current definition of wellness was besides narrow and the planet wellness Organisation together with the Food and Agriculture Agency (FAO) and the wellness Agency (FAO) Animals started joint action under the slogan One Health, which resulted in the publication of a fresh definition: "One wellness is an integrated, unifying approach that strives for sustainable balance and optimisation of human, animal and ecosystem health. It considers that human health, home and chaotic animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) is closely linked and interdependent." Human wellness is no more crucial than animal or ecosystem health. This definition is integral to the UN Sustainable improvement Goals, in peculiar with the 3rd nonsubjective on wellness and prosperity, as well as with environmental and life-related objectives on land and underwater.

The ‘One Health’ rule is included in the draft pandemic treaty and means that everything – animal health, the ecosystem, concerns about CO2 levels and, of course, human wellness – are factors that can form the basis for drastic measures, including even public wellness or pandemic risk.

• Digitisation of health

In June 2023, the WHO and the European Commission announced an agreement by which the WHO would take over Digital certification strategy COVID-19 European Union to establish a global system, which "will facilitate mobility and defend citizens around the planet from current and future wellness threats, including pandemics".

This is the first component of the WHO Global Digital wellness Certification Network (GDHCN), a global mechanics for verifying wellness documents, including digital certificates for COVID-19 tests and vaccines. Digital wellness papers are described in Article 35 of global wellness Regulations. The strategy of digital wellness papers is consistent and compatible with the digital identifiers described by the planet economical Forum, which will be essential to access wellness insurance and treatment, open bank accounts and conduct online transactions, travel, access to humanitarian services, buying and business transactions, usage of social media, pay taxes, vote in elections, collect benefits and grants, usage of communication devices specified as mobile telephone or computer.

We operate without censorship. We don't advertise, we don't charge for texts. We request your support. Throw yourself in the media.

In another words, individuals will request digital identifiers to access almost all aspect of a civilized society. All our activities utilizing digital identifiers will be tracked and monitored. wellness digitization critics believe that digital identifiers can be a form of mass surveillance and totalitarian control.

• International wellness Regulations (IHR 2005)

International wellness Regulations (IHR) were first adopted by the WHO planet wellness Assembly in 1969. In 2005, a crucial revision and update of the provisions came into force on 15 June 2007. None of the documents, the first provisions adopted in 1969, nor the subsequent update, were ratified by the parliaments of the associate States, were adopted and entered into force by a decision of the planet wellness Assembly, WHO's ultimate decision-making body, which consists of representatives of all associate States. In accordance with WHO procedures adoption of these provisions did not require additional ratification at national level (with an opt-out procedure where any associate State may rise objections within a specified time limit).

IHRs are legally binding on 196 countries, making them 1 of the WHO's most crucial tools for managing global wellness crises. The aim of IHR 2005 is to prevent, defend against, control and respond to the global spread of diseases that may pose a threat to public wellness while avoiding unnecessary disruption to global traffic and trade. In the light of these provisions, associate States are required to make and keep the ability to detect, assess, study and respond to wellness events that may affect public health.

How much impact may these regulations have on people's lives is shown by Article 31 of the 2005 wellness Regulations "Health measures for the entry of travellers", which, in the second point, states that if a traveller from whom a certain country may require medical examination, vaccination or another prevention does not agree to specified a measurement or refuses to supply information or documents, the country afraid may refuse entry to that travellerand where there is evidence of a direct hazard to public health, may force the traveller to undergo medical, immunization or another preventive measures, including isolation, quarantine or public wellness observation.

This article was the driving force behind the smithy restrictions around the planet during the Covid-19 pandemic, driving the introduction of universal PCR tests, as a reliable diagnostic method to find whether or not individual is sick and whether it poses a possible threat to another people, which drove pandemic statistics, allowing for the introduction of ever-increasing fresh restrictions, warrants and bans, and a fast way of authorisation for experimental vaccines that, however, did not halt the infection and did not halt the transmission of the virus.

WHO in the COVID-19 pandemic

One of the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic was that the WHO Executive Council decided to consider changes in the IHR version to date and proposed a fresh pandemic treaty. The thought "is to strengthen global preparedness and responsiveness to public wellness emergencies". But the WHO has never made a balance sheet of profits and losses resulting from the action taken in the pandemic. The desire to strengthen preparedness and responsiveness should be based on an analysis that would show the ineffectiveness of the actions taken, which were based on identical assumptions worldwide – in line with WHO recommendations.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO proved its incompetence. It has abandoned the usage of safe and proven drugs – during the pandemics, the treatment protocols proposed by many doctors with existing retargeted drugs (iwermectin, hydroxychloroquine) were referred to by the WHO as unacceptable experimental therapies, and the vaccination with an experimental mRNA that has never been utilized in humans before became a global treatment regimen, even though the vaccine was not aware that studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccines were not completed, there were unknown issues of carcinogenicity, the safety of vaccination in pregnant and lactating women or children, so it is not possible to talk of ‘conscious consent’.

The WHO ignored the experience of first contact doctors, disregarded evidence from low, average and advanced income countries. The lowest income countries recorded 44.9 000 deaths attributed to Covid-19, while the mediate and advanced income countries accounted for nearly 6 million deaths. The WHO has besides ignored a immense number of adverse reactions in its own database and has not issued warnings on gene vaccines.

In March 2021, “World leaders unite in an urgent appeal for an global treaty on pandemic: 25 Heads of Government and global agencies jointly call for the signing of a fresh treaty, which will signal high-level political action essential to defend the planet from future wellness crises. There will be more pandemics and another serious wellness risks. No single government or multilateral agency can face this threat alone. The question is not whether, but when."

In July 2021, an Independent Panel on Preparedness and consequence to the pandemic is held at the UN General Assembly, which recommends the improvement of a fresh treaty, "a fresh framework pandemic convention, which should, inter alia, fill gaps in the current legal strategy and clarify the responsibilities of states and global entities. specified a pandemic treaty or framework convention would give States Parties the chance to commit themselves to the principles of preparedness and consequence to the pandemic in a spirit of common commitment and would make the framework for the organization architecture essential to prevent future pandemics."

The squad recommended “to increase the authority and independency of the WHO, including by providing it with adequate, predictable, flexible and sustainable funding, and to guarantee that in future, the Director-General and Regional Directors are elected for one, seven-year term. A importantly improved surveillance and illness informing strategy is needed. The WHO must have the power to rapidly analyse outbreaks of anxiety and to print information on its own subject".

Amendments to the IHR and the fresh pandemic Treaty – threats

On 27 May – 1 June 2024, the 77th planet wellness Assembly of the WHO was held in Geneva, which preceded more than 1 and a half years of negotiations on 2 separate instruments of global law: amendments to global wellness Regulations (IHR 2005) and a fresh pandemic agreement - the pandemic treaty.

The gathering failed to scope agreement on the Treaty – it was decided that the negotiations for its adoption would be concluded within a year. A fewer hours before the gathering ended, delegates, violating the WHO's interior rules, adopted amendments to global wellness Regulations (2005). The amendments, prepared behind closed doors, were submitted for consideration and acceptance by the planet wellness Assembly virtually in fresh moments of encounter with gross disregard for established protocol and procedures.

The provisions of Article 55(2) of the IHR have been completely ignored, which requires that any planned amendments and amendments to the global wellness Regulations be made available to the associate States "at least 4 months" prior to their consideration at the WHO planet Assembly. The Director-General refused to hold a formal vote in order to adopt a legally binding global agreement, announcing that there was a "consensus" on the matter.

The amendments adopted are importantly reduced in relation to the initially planned more than 300 amendments, including many controversial ones, specified as seeking to remove the provisions on "respect of dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people", introducing provisions modifying the function of the WHO from an advisory organisation, which only makes non-binding recommendations, to an organisation whose provisions will be legally binding on associate States or requiring pharmaceutical companies to be able to make vaccines at hazard in 100 days, allowing the introduction of a "scenario of voluntary vaccination utilizing products inactive in the investigation phase or subject to very limited availability".

The amendments that associate States have adopted will facilitate the global expansion of the vast industrial complex of pharmaceutical hospitals to support the distribution of "essential medical products". There are concerns that their real aim will be to make continuous "pandemic crises" which will be further aggravated by the usage of "essential wellness products".

The amendments importantly increase the financial position of the WHO, focusing on consolidating backing sources in order to implement government that strengthens the capacity of states to Response to pandemic crises. This includes ensuring access to alleged essential wellness products, which are essential to respond to public wellness threats of global scope, specified as pandemics. These products may include ‘medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products (any which can carry diseases specified as mosquitoes or another insects), individual protective devices, disinfectants, supportive products, antidotes, cell and gene therapies and another wellness technologies".

The backing mechanisms will not only be sourced and distributed by national authorities but will besides include the redistribution of funds from developed countries to developing countries through the WHO. 1 of the amendments provides for a mechanics that, with the agreement of the IHR State, would include "mobilising financial resources to support developing countries in building, strengthening and maintaining basic capacities" to respond to and prevent pandemics. This means that richer countries would aid finance the emerging pandemic preparedness complex in developing countries, under the supervision of the WHO.

The amendments to the IHR adopted must be interpreted inextricably with the Pandemic Treaty, the adoption of which is only postponed.

The Pandemic Treaty is an effort to introduce a fresh global trade agreement which gives the WHO a monopoly on the collection of fresh pathogens collected by associate States and transferred free of charge to WHO laboratories, whose head will decide on their pandemic potential. The treaty, together with the IHR, creates a model of inevitably recurring "pandemic crisis situations": public money will fund and make financial mechanisms to search for pathogens and their options to be transferred to WHO laboratories, allowing for the announcement of pandemic emergency situations, introduction of risk-related restrictions (locking, masking orders, etc.) and urge mandatory mass vaccinations with medicines prepared by pharmaceutical companies for 100 days, and 20% of the production of vaccines and another medical products would be placed at the sole disposal of the WHO until a fresh pathogen is found and the cycle is repeated.

This agreement will supply immense profits to large Pharma corporations and investors, a state of constant threat will give extraordinary powers to governments that will gladly deprive us of further civilian rights and freedoms, for the greater good of the general public.

The definition of pandemic hazard is constructed in a way incredibly liquid, giving the Director-General the chance to print it at his discretion without circumstantial criteria; Article 12 definesthat it is the head of the WHO who decides whether an event constitutes a public wellness emergency of global scope, without any anticipation of questioning that decision, without any regulation allowing it to be challenged. It is all in the hands of this 1 person: "The state of pandemic hazard means a public wellness emergency of global scope which is caused by an infectious illness and spreads or there is simply a advanced hazard that it will spread to many countries, exceeds or has a advanced hazard of exceeding the capacity of wellness care systems to respond in those countries; it causes or risks causing crucial social and/or economical disruptions, including disruptions in global traffic and trade; and requires rapid, equitable and reinforced coordinated global action, with an approach covering the full government and society." How many people are at advanced risk? There are no specifics in the paper specifying the number of people who request to be hospitalised, the number of cases of illness or death found to be a threat. Everything is decided arbitrarily, one-man WHO chief, which gives emergence to suspicions that the definition of a pandemic threat was created only to make fear among people and then manage that fear.

The amendments adopted strengthen the WHO's monopoly on only correct public wellness information by eliminating the voices of opposition from the public area and deepening legitimate concerns about the organization introduction of political and technological censorship – it is the WHO who is to decide what can be said and what is misinformation.

The amendments adopted include a clause that opens the door to state-supported censorship: “At national level... each country-side will develop, strengthen and maintain... basic hazard awareness capabilities..., including combating misinformation and false information’.

The request that states deal with "disinformation" offers a wide scope of opportunities for abuse. no of these terms are defined in the document. Does ‘handling’ mean censorship and possible punishment of those who have given different opinions? During the Covid-19 pandemic, doctors and scientists who disagreed with the WHO communicative were censored for their views. Those who proposed treatment protocols not recommended by the WHO were threatened by the suspension of their medical license. Now censorship will be introduced as a request for global wellness Regulations, which will surely be utilized to justify actions against those who argue the WHO's authoritative wellness narrative, specified as requiring social media to delete their content. Just as the hazard of “disinformation” was utilized to justify systemic censorship of opposition voices during the Covid pandemic. The supervision request does not specify what is to be supervised.

Articles 4 and 5 of the latest draft Treaty on continuous pandemic surveillance and concept One Health supply an excuse for public wellness surveillance due to the fact that environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic (i.e. human-induced climate change) and economical factors increase the hazard of pandemics. The WHO will so search to identify these factors and take them into account in the improvement and implementation of applicable policies. Through the “One Health” approach, WHO usurp power and right to monitor all aspects of life on Earth.

Analyzing the amendments introduced and the draft of the fresh pandemic treaty, the following script seems to be real: The Pharmaceutical Company, a sponsor of the planet wellness Organization, has developed an mRNA vaccine for a fresh variant of the highly dangerous monkey smallpox or flu virus. The WHO announces an outbreak and then pandemic, promoting the vaccination programme as the only possible way out of the crisis. The fast way of the regulatory procedures allows for fast authorisation of the preparation by the marketing authorisation agencies, and the Digital wellness Certificate helps to advance vaccination action: unvaccinated people – although vaccinations are voluntary, they cannot enter shops, bars and restaurants, they have problem uncovering jobs and cannot travel. Thanks to specified global “marketing” sales of vaccines go billions, the Pharmaceutical Company is satisfied with the satisfaction of its investors, repaying the WHO with generous donations.

How can this work in practice? The current WHO chief scientist is Sir Jeremy Farrar, who has served since 2023. Earlier, between 2013 and 2023, Mr Farrar was the manager of the foundation The Wellcome Trust. Wellcome Trust together with the Gates Foundation were key partners in establishing the Coalition for Innovation in Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), an initiative to accelerate the improvement of vaccines against infectious diseases, prepare responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and accelerate preparations for future pandemics. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest donor of the WHO – over 88 percent of the full amount donated to the WHO by philanthropic foundations comes from the Gates. another donors, Bloomberg household Foundation, Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation together contribute about 6%. In April 2024, the planet wellness Organization expressed concern about the spread of the H5N1 avian influenza virus, which is characterised by an "extraordinarily high" human mortality.

Jeremy Farrar believes that this is simply a immense origin for concern that the influenza A (H5N1) variant will become “Global zoological pandemic: "Of course, the large concern is that by infecting ducks and chickens and then expanding numbers of mammals, the virus evolves and develops the ability to infect people and then the ability to pass from man to man." Granted, Farrar says, so far there is no evidence that H5N1 spreads among people, but in hundreds of cases where people have been infected by contact with animals in the last 20 years, “mortality is highly high” due to the fact that people do not have natural opposition to the virus.

According to the WHO for 21 years, from 2003 to 2024 worldwide only 889 cases of virus infection and 463 deaths caused by H5N1 in 23 countries have been reported, resulting in a mortality rate of 52%. The majority of cases are events from 2003 to 2009. There were 2 cases of infection and not 1 death in the United States at that time.

In early October 2024, the global Summit on Bird Flu was held, bringing together representatives of various sectors, including the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, manufacture interests groups and NGOs. This summit, like erstwhile meetings specified as Event 201, focused on preparing for possible wellness crises related to avian influenza. These topics included mass mortality management, surveillance and data management, public preparation strategies, supply of vaccines and antivirals, medical measures and socio-economic impact on the poultry and breeding industry.

Earlier in July 2024, U.S. Secretary of the Department of wellness and Welfare announced the avian influenza as a state of emergency under the PREP Act: “I find that there is simply a crucial possible for a public wellness emergency with pandemic potential, justifying the authorisation of emergency diagnostics in vitro for the detection of avian influenza A virus (H7N9)’.

The FDA has licensed 3 avian influenza vaccines (H5N1): Sanofi, Biomedical and Seqirus licensed on the basis of studies conducted on very tiny groups of volunteers with a large number of adverse events. The state of emergency announcement allows you to usage the fast way in emergency mode. On 29 July, the WHO website reports: “A fresh task was launched present to accelerate the improvement and availability of human avian influenza vaccines (H5N1) based on the mRNA platform for producers in low- and medium-income countries. The Argentine maker Sinergium Biotech will lead these efforts, utilizing the planet wellness Organisation (WHO) and medicine Patent Pool (MPP) technology transfer program.’

The individual liable for implementing the changes to the global wellness Regulations IHR is the Chief Sanitary Inspector, Dr. Paweł Grzesiowski.