Yes, quite possible. In spite of the fact that the intended changes to the content of the IHR actually usurp national sovereignty by changing the role of the WHO from advisory to dictatorial, they were advertised as being mere adjustments to an existing, government-approved international treaty that would not require further ratification…
Yes, quite possible. In spite of the fact that the intended changes to the content of the IHR actually usurp national sovereignty by changing the role of the WHO from advisory to dictatorial, they were advertised as being mere adjustments to an existing, government-approved international treaty that would not require further ratification--tacit approval for all member countries would be assumed unless explicitly rejected at the general meeting. So we cannot relax our guard but need to continue monitoring the WHO lest they again attempt this global takeover down the road.
Yes, quite possible. In spite of the fact that the intended changes to the content of the IHR actually usurp national sovereignty by changing the role of the WHO from advisory to dictatorial, they were advertised as being mere adjustments to an existing, government-approved international treaty that would not require further ratification--tacit approval for all member countries would be assumed unless explicitly rejected at the general meeting. So we cannot relax our guard but need to continue monitoring the WHO lest they again attempt this global takeover down the road.
^^^^