WHO in secrecy
Let freedom of information ring and Judicial Review attach
This letter was drafted on May 6, 2022. It was directed to Boris Johnson and was on the website of Americas Frontline Doctors. We have gone almost a year, with no Parliament having a debate until the UK yesterday April 17, 2023
“Prime Minister
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Care of The Litigation Group
The Government Legal Department
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9GL
the 6 May 2022
By e-mail: thetreasurysolicitor@governmentlegal.gov.uk
AND BY POST
Dear Sirs,
Request for an Urgent Review regarding forthcoming WHA agenda item
I am writing on behalf of Dr. R. Zac Cox BDS regarding serious concerns arising from the current proposal for an agenda item on the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) namely the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR). Proposed agenda item 16.2 (12th April 2022).
Link to IHR: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580410.
Link to proposed amendments: https://www.medicdebate.org/files/C.L.2.2022-IHR-
amendments-English.pdf
75th WHA Agenda Item
It is understood that at the 75th WHA, due to commence on 22nd May 2022 in Geneva, amendments to IHR are proposed by America and these are sponsored by the UK (along with 19 other Member States (MSs)). It is further understood that such amendments will be subject to a vote by MS delegates and almost certainly adopted by each MS in accordance with the IHR and World Health Organization (WHO) constitution (thereafter being adopted into National legislation in accordance with IHR).
Consequences of WHA agenda item
A direct consequence of the delegation to the WHA delegate at the 75th WHA is to allow adoption of a policy that delegates potential, if not absolute, decision-making authority to WHO Director General (DG) as to decisions for regional and intermediate lockdown measures (which currently only relate to advice for international situations).
As set out below, the harms that can result from such lockdowns are not only far reaching but substantial in terms of financial damage to the country as well as individuals. A large body of experts now consider that lockdown measures are harmful and neither “safe nor effective” all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Constitutional and Human Rights issues
The fundamental human rights protected by the ECHR are clearly of relevance. Furthermore, issues of constitutional change are clearly of the utmost importance and one must do all to ensure that justice is not just done but is seen to be done and that fundamental natural law rights and freedoms are not breached or curtailed/infringed. Proportionality and greater justification of reasons for delegation and use of discretion are clearly essential where constitutional and human rights issues are concerned. Use of discretion and delegation of powers must be as Parliament intended.
Lack of transparency/Public Interest
Public awareness of the powers of WHO, the DG of WHO, IHR, WHA, delegation of voting powers at WHA, the American proposed amendments to IHR, sponsorship by UK of these proposed amendments and the far-reaching nature of these (in the context of Human Rights to a WHO delegate) is negligible if not completely absent.
Public awareness and calls for action to oppose the “Pandemic Treaty”
due to concerns of loss of sovereignty to WHO have begun (see for example https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/614335 - The WHO is currently preparing an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
We believe the public must be furnished with the full ramifications of what and how any pandemic treaty could affect them, and be given a public vote on whether the UK should sign up, before the UK Government signs up to this) when the commencement date is in fact not until 2024 but the proposed amendments to the IHR are not within general public knowledge despite the imminent WHA this month in May 2022 and the likely adoption of the proposed amendments at the 75th WHA which result in more far reaching outcome than the Pandemic Treaty.
Urgent request for review
This letter should be considered as a request for an immediate/urgent review to the decision not to publicise, obtain parliamentary scrutiny and or public consultation of the agenda item before it’s adoption/discussion at the 75th WHA starting on 22nd May 2022. Such review to be made with reference to the material and information contained in this letter and/or an indication that knowledge of this government decision to delegate consideration of amendments to IHR is deemed appropriate when such far reaching harms could result from the amendments if adopted (without public awareness of the significance, without parliamentary scrutiny and without public consultation).
In light of the high-profile Brexit decisions and related government claim of maintaining sovereignty, such delegation of powers to DG of WHO (and delegation of such decision making for amendments to a WHA delegates) giving powers with far reaching consequences by way of amending international regulations seems to be incompatible and potentially inadvertent/unwitting oxymoron.
The lawfulness of the proposed amendments to IHR appears to be questionable and the delegation of adopting such amendments equally so (given their far reaching potential constitutional effect and the lack of public awareness and/or parliamentary scrutiny).
By way of an example of the effect of adoption of the proposed amendments:
DG can listen to another Member State (MS) to give information (not requiring evidence) no matter their motive which could cause harm (financial) to UK, DG acts on this information, recommends lockdown in UK causing financial harm in UK and HR issues to UK nationals (incompatible with “the Convention Rights’: eg Article 5,8,9,10,11,14, and Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education).
Please consider, therefore, a review of UK sponsorship and inclusion as an agenda issue in light of the following:-
- amendments were sponsored without public awareness and without public scrutiny or public consultation
- constitutional amendment regarding delegation of potential sovereign rights to an unelected body in the context of it (i) being unknown (ii) IHR scope being unknown (iii) proposed IHR amendments being unknown (iv) UK sponsorship of proposed amendments being unknown (v) WHA agenda and powers being unknown (vi) delegate voting at WHA on UK behalf unknown.
- Whether a failure to now review sponsorship of such a constitutional matter is either ultra vires and or Wednesbury unreasonable especially given the delegation aspect and the complete lack of transparency of the regulations, amendments and delegation of decision making as well as the resulting delegation of power and therefore sovereignty.
- Whether it is an abuse of, or unlawful use of, or improper purpose of use of discretion- i.e. improper delegation to a currently unknown WHO delegate and where it is unknown if relevant considerations have been applied and irrelevant ones discounted and or what the real purpose the discretion was used for (especially in light of the complete lack of transparency and potential dangerousness of delegation of sovereign powers hidden within wording of discrete secondary legislation).
-Whether there are concerns of irrationality- namely the decision to sponsor and delegate such a decision to WHA - namely is it Wednesbury unreasonable given the far reaching nature.
The principle of proportionality being applicable given the human rights and constitutional issues.
- Whether there is potential procedural impropriety- namely failure to comply with
(i) constitutional procedures
(ii) legitimate expectations re constitutional/ sovereignty issues redelegated decision on regional and intermediate lockdowns etc to Director-General (DG) of WHO
(iii) general duty to act fairly- natural justice and justice being seen to be done.
- whether such amendments with far reaching consequences should be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
- whether it is appropriate to remove the proposed amendments from being a WHA agenda item at 75th WHA May 2022.
- whether the WHO can be deemed an organization suitable to be given sovereign powers by virtue of the proposed amendments (especially in view of the controversial private funded nature of the organisation since 2005 including Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (a larger contribution than even the United States government) and also include donors who profit from lockdown measure such as AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck.).
Request for Information
(1) Name and contact details for the 75th WHA UK delegate.
(2) Date of any Parliamentary debates relating to the proposed amendments to IHR
(3) Date of any publication with explanations to the general public of UK regarding the
proposed amendments
(4) Any information/ debate details regarding proposed national legislation to
incorporate the proposed amendments should they be adopted at 75th WHA.
(5) Date and reasons for sponsorship by UK of the proposed amendments with details of considerations of transparency and public awareness of proposed delegated powers
and their effect.
(6) My Client relies on information regarding the 75th WHA that is researchable following the announcement of the proposed “pandemic Treaty” (Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response). However, if there is information that the Government is aware of that would otherwise undermine the justification for inclusion of the proposed amendments to IHR to be considered and adopted at 75th WHA (as per the Provisional Agenda item 16.2 dated 12th April 2022), such as:
(a) the latest information as to WHA agenda items and proposed IHR amendments or
otherwise information regarding delegation of powers to WHO;
(b) information as to all WHA delegates and invitees/attendees;
(c) The latest information regarding harmful effect of lockdown measures;
(d) The latest information regarding the ineffectiveness of lockdown measures in respect of spread of covid-19 to include vaccines, masks, social distancing and testing;
(e) The latest information regarding the disproportionate impact of lockdown measures on certain groups and individuals and to include children and, for example, ethnic minorities and others grouped by protected characteristics;
(f) The latest information on the harm and effectiveness of travel and trade restrictions;
(g) Guidance as to procedure for constitutional change/ matters of sovereignty and delegation of the same powers and procedures.
(h) information received from the ONS, JCVI, MHRA or other advisory or regulatory bodies that discloses concern as to the safety and effectiveness of any of the Vaccines and whether therefore that travel passports and such like are still arguable
(i) information and or advice regarding the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccines and other lockdown measures in reducing transmission.
My Client is informed by the latest available data and analysis on lockdown measures.
For example,
- In the recent report/review published by John Hopkins Institute for Applied
Economics, Global Health, and Study of Business Enterprise, Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke concluded that an analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.
More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/frederick-forsyth/1564221/lockdowns-research-covid-truth.
It would be helpful to understand government’s position so that action can be considered within the tight Judicial Review timescales and given the pending 75th WHA due to start on 22nd May 2022, and you are therefore asked to provide written confirmation of the following by 5pm on Friday 13th May 2022:
(1) The fact that a review with the above information has been carried out and the outcome and reasons and/or reasons for failure to review;
(2) The name and contact details for the UK delegate for the 75th WHA 2022 expected to deal with the proposed amendments to the IHR together with a list of delegates for the other 193 MS;
(3) Answers to requests for information (1) – (6) inc. above.
Potential proposed action
Should a satisfactory response not be received, and should an acceptable outcome not be reached by 5pm 13th May 2022, it is anticipated that one or more of the following actions (but not limited to the same) will be taken (whether by an individual application or proposed group standing action) in seeking to protect fundamental constitutional rights:
- Pre-action protocol JR letter before claim (if timing allows);
- Emergency JR application seeking an injunction prohibiting the proposed amendments to remain on the 75th WHA Agenda; and/or prohibiting UK Sponsorship to continue pre transparency eg parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation;
- JR request for a declaration: ultra vires and or Wednesbury unreasonable and or procedurally improper;
- JR request for a mandatory order that such far reaching amendments have to be subject to transparency, public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny/ order prohibiting inclusion of the proposed amendments on the WHA agenda.
You will appreciate that time is of the essence in this matter and as such we look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible and within 7 days at the latest (5pm 13th May 2022).
Please note that my Client intends to make this letter public because he considers it to be an urgent matter of the utmost public importance.”
CONSIDER THIS. WHETHER THE DEMAND WAS MADE OR NOT TO ANY LEADER OR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, GIVEN THE LACK OF DISCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC AND THE FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES ON ISSUES OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, COULD AN URGENT MOTION TO THE SUPREME COURT BE MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THIS IS A COUP, A COUP, A COUP.
THIS IS ALL THE MORE SERIOUS FOR THE NATION THAT IS ADVANCING THE AMENDMENTS.