2026-04-14 08:43:57 +02:00

Ulrich

Yes I do

No I do not

2026-04-14 06:52:56 +02:00

Linette

Yes I do

No I do not

2026-04-13 20:49:09 +02:00

Mateen

Yes I do

No I do not

2026-04-12 07:36:29 +02:00

L

Yes I do

No I do not

2026-04-11 05:01:27 +02:00

Jessica

Yes I do

No I do not

2026-04-07 07:28:50 +02:00

kay

Yes I do

No I do not

2026-04-03 21:14:29 +02:00

Deborah

Yes I do

No I do not

NO NO NO NO TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

2026-03-28 03:12:34 +02:00

Mary-Ann

Yes I do

No I do not

People should have a right on decision regarding their health and not be forced to make a regulated decision.

2026-03-27 20:58:22 +02:00

Jeannot

No I do not

No I do not

The WHO like the WEF are unelected and have 'infiltrated' cabinets, world wide on many levels, the tentacles run deep.
The WHO are a criminal organisation behind the mass VAXX illegal operation and de-population control agenda of 2030.

2026-03-25 10:26:44 +02:00

Petra

Yes I do

No I do not

Bypassing Democratic Processes: A major concern is that these amendments were adopted at the World Health Assembly without being debated or voted on by national parliaments. Critics argue that binding international regulations should not be implemented without the direct consent of elected representatives.
Erosion of National Sovereignty: Opponents, including some South African MPs, describe the amendments as a "power grab" by the WHO. They argue that the changes could undermine a nation's sovereign right to determine its own public health policies, potentially ceding control over domestic responses to an unelected international body.
Reduced Transparency and Review Time: The 2022 amendments specifically sought to shorten the period for rejecting future amendments from 18 months down to 10 months. Rejecting these changes preserves the longer 18-month window, allowing more time for thorough national review and public consultation.
Expansion of WHO Authority: Concerns have been raised that the amendments—and the broader set of 307 proposed changes—significantly expand the WHO's authority. This includes the ability to declare health emergencies with less consultation and increased influence over "narrative management" and potential censorship under the guise of countering disinformation.
Constitutional and Legal Risks: Some nations, such as New Zealand and the United States, have used the rejection or "opt-out" mechanism to provide their governments more time for a full "National Interest Analysis" or to satisfy internal constitutional requirements.