The International Health Regulations of 2005 of WHO: Are they legally binding? Do they allow forced vaccinations?

Tim Vawker send an email to me this morning in which he says the World Health Organization has no legal power to force vaccinations on its member states. This is a point of confusion. The fact is the International Health Regulations of 2005 which entered into force on 15 June 2007 and are currently legally binding upon 194 States Parties around the world (including all WHO Member States), and they allow, in conjunction with WHO’s constitution, forced vaccinations around the world.

See this link for the International Health Regulations 2005.

http://www.who.int/ihr/legal_issues/legislation/en/index.html

A document which is called an introduction to the implementation of the IHR for national governments says that states have obligations: “[]the IHR (2005) contain rights and obligations for States Parties (and functions for WHO) concerning national and international surveillance; assessment and public health response; health measures applied by States Parties to international travellers, aircraft, ships, motor vehicles and goods; public health at international ports, airports and ground crossings (together referred to as “points of entry”); and many other subjects (In light of the expansive definitions of “disease”, “event”, “public health risk” and other relevant terms in the IHR (2005), the coverage of the Regulations includes much more than a list of specific infectious diseases.”

http://www.who.int/ihr/Intro_legislative_implementation.pdf

“The implementation of the Regulations can impact governmental functions and responsibilities across many ministries, sectors and governmental levels,” says the document, underlining the vast powers to control all aspects of a nation state that the WHO has acquired.

Moreover, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act contains provisions for making vaccination compulsory in the USA and for classifiying anyone who refuses as a criminal. There is, therefore, a patchwork of international, national, federal and state laws in place to allow forced vaccination.

To get an idea of the scope of the IHR 2005, here are some excerpts:

“Introduction
The International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR (2005)” or “Regulations”)
are the international legal instrument designed to help protect all States from the
international spread of disease. The IHR (2005) entered into force on 15 June
2007. They are currently legally binding upon 194 States Parties around the
world (including all WHO Member States).

This document provides a brief introduction to legislative implementation of the
IHR (2005) to assist States Parties in initiating such processes. Since the scope
of the IHR (2005) is very broad and cuts across a number of public health and
other subject areas, it is proposed that this document be brought to the attention
of officials and legal advisers within all the relevant ministries and departments,
as well as other relevant authorities, at all governmental levels (including
national, intermediate and local) with functions or responsibilities affected by
the IHR (2005) (see Box II below).

This document provides introductory guidance on the implementation of the
IHR (2005) in national legislation. How the IHR requirements are to be
implemented is up to each State Party in light of its own domestic legal and
governance systems, socio-political contexts and policies. Each State Party
should therefore determine the extent to which the different aspects of this
guidance may be relevant or appropriate to their particular circumstances.
International Health Regulations (2005). A brief introduction to implementation in national legislation

1. What are the IHR (2005)?
The IHR (2005) are the international legal instrument designed to help protect
all States from the international spread of disease, including public health risks
and public health emergencies.
The purpose and scope of the IHR (2005) are very broad, focusing upon almost
all serious public health risks that might spread across international borders.
According to Article 2, the purpose and scope of the Regulations are:
“to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to
the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and
restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference
with international traffic and trade.” (emphasis added)

To this end, the IHR (2005) contain rights and obligations for States Parties
(and functions for WHO) concerning national and international surveillance;
assessment and public health response; health measures applied by States
Parties to international travellers, aircraft, ships, motor vehicles and goods;
public health at international ports, airports and ground crossings (together
referred to as “points of entry”); and many other subjects (see Box I below).
In light of the expansive definitions of “disease”, “event”, “public health risk”
and other relevant terms in the IHR (2005), the coverage of the Regulations
includes much more than a list of specific infectious diseases. Accordingly, the
IHR (2005) cover a wide range of public health risks of potential international
concern:
• whether biological, chemical or radionuclear in origin or source, and
• whether potentially transmitted by:
o persons (e.g. SARS, influenza, polio, Ebola),
o goods, food, animals (including zoonotic disease risks),
o vectors (e.g. plague, yellow fever, West Nile fever), or
o the environment (e.g. radionuclear releases, chemical spills or
other contamination).

2. Which governmental functions and subject areas
may be affected by IHR (2005) implementation?
The implementation of the Regulations can impact governmental functions
and responsibilities across many ministries, sectors and governmental levels.
For example, implementation can involve governmental or related activities
at the ministerial (or higher) levels, as well as specific operational functions
(such as legal provisions authorizing inspection of ships) (see Boxes II and
III below).
Box II.
Subject areas affected by IHR (2005) implementation
Subject areas affected by IHR (2005) implementation include:
• environment
• public health
• international ports, airports, ground crossings (including quarantine)
• customs
• food safety
• agriculture (including animal health)
• radiation safety
• chemical safety
• transportation (including dangerous goods)
• collection, use and disclosure of public health information
• public health activities of authorities or other relevant entities at the
intermediate (e.g. state, provincial or regional) and local levels.
Box III.
Selected governmental functions implementing international and national
aspects of IHR (2005)
Among others, the IHR (2005) affect governmental functions concerning:
• international traffic, communications and collaboration including
o legislation, regulations and other instruments;
o activities concerning virtually all aspects of international traffic
(travellers, transport and trade); and
o international communications (e.g. reporting public health events
to WHO and collaborating in assessment and response);
and
• national capacities and activities including
o national legislation, regulations and other instruments;
o development of national public health capacities for surveillance
and response throughout the State territory and capacities at
specific international points of entry (ports, airports, and ground
crossings); and
o coordination of public health communications and assessment
across relevant ministries, departments and levels (e.g. national,
state or regional, local) of government.
International Health Regulations (2005). A brief introduction to implementation in national legislation

5
3. Why are national legislation, regulations and other
instruments relevant for IHR (2005) implementation?
Note:
The term
“legislation,
regulations and
other
instruments” (at
times shortened
to “legislation”)
is used in this
document
generally to
refer to the
broad range of
legal,
administrative
or other
governmental
instruments
which may be
available for
States Parties to
implement the
IHR (2005) and
which are not
necessarily
limited to
instruments
adopted by the
legislature.
An adequate legal framework to support and enable all of the varied IHR (2005)
State Party activities is needed in each State. In some States, giving effect to the
IHR (2005) within domestic jurisdiction and national law requires that the
relevant authorities adopt implementing legislation for some or all of the
relevant rights and obligations for States Parties. However, even where new or
revised legislation may not be explicitly required under the State Party’s legal
system for implementation of one or more provisions in the IHR (2005),
revision of some legislation, regulations or other instruments may still be
considered by the country in order to facilitate performance of IHR activities in
a more efficient, effective or otherwise beneficial manner.
Additionally, from a policy perspective, implementing legislation may serve to
institutionalize and strengthen the role of IHR (2005) capacities and operations
within the State Party. A further potential benefit from such legislation is that it
can facilitate necessary coordination among the different entities involved in
implementation and help to ensure continuity.”

In the light of the facts listed above and other facts, regulations and legislation such as the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act, it can be argued that Tim Vawker gave a wrong impression about the legal basis for forced vaccinations in the USA when he said it “isn’t actually law”.

Tim Vawker filed the injunction on behalf of “Elizabeth Book” and Elizabeth Book and Drew Raines allege he took money from Elizabeth for this.

Here is Tim Vawker’s email.

“On late Friday night Aug 7, 2009 into early Sat morning I was watching CSPAN, America’s large congressional TV channel, and I saw HHS secretary, several other high ranking US govt officials and Dr. Fauci, director of the NIAID, come out to say there will be no forced flu vaccinations

I saw it with my own eyes.

THERE WILL BE NO FORCED FLU VACCINATIONS

Over the next few days, expect to see video clips posted all over Youtube.com and the mainstream media showing NIAID Director Fauci emphatically stating to the public there will be no forced flu vaccinations.

WE HAVE VICTORY !

THE PEACE ACTIVISTS HAVE WON !

The federal govt, of course, will now be pressured to reiterate this powerful statement. It will likely do so by having a good number of additional high ranking Washington officials repeat this same beautiful statement on TV during the next few days “there will be no forced flu vaccinations”.

How forced flu vaccinations were to be initiated
Apparently, how the UN’s World Health Organization works, is it spreads the somewhat false message that there will be forced vaccinations through the major TV networks, who then eagerly repeat it to the public. Kind of like buttering up the American people to accept forced vaccinations if they do come, and buttering up the federal govt to go along with it.

As far as I can tell, the “forced flu vaccinations” aspect of the law isn’t actually a law. It’s within an agreement President Bush signed with the UN that allows the UN’s World Health Organization to assume control over various parts of America’s govt if a serious flu pandemic occurs. And, to require forced flu vaccinations to the entire American public.”