Regarding the 30 January 2020 WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern: Implications of Falsified PHEIC, HHC Secretary Azar's "Need" for PHEIC & backdating of PHE determination
Remind me - if the WHO’s 30 January 2020 [declaration of a public health emergency of international concern by WHO Director-General] were shown to be false, i.e., the conditions for activation were not met and the persons responsible for green-lighting the decree proven to have acted maliciously or against contradictory or insufficient evidence, what would “happen” (if anything)?
I have spent far less time studying the WHO International Health Regulations than Roguski has.
I think the WHO-IHR is probably the legal instrument whose contents would address this question. I've focused on studying American federal and state law, because the WHO-IHR, in itself, has limited enforcement mechanisms. My understanding is that the enforcement mechanisms the WHO-IHR does have come mostly by reference to other treaties and trade agreements, that can be used to financially penalize non-compliant countries. (Other enforcement mechanisms include the terms of vaccine supply contracts that prohibit third-party testing of delivered products and designate state assets as collateral to be forfeited in the event the purchasing government violates contract terms.)
WHO-IHR directs or requires participating member-states to adopt and implement their own domestic laws for pandemic surveillance, reporting and response measures, and subjects them to financial penalties if they don't adopt those implementing laws. For example, Article 56, Section 4: "Nothing in these Regulations shall impair the rights of States Parties under any international agreement to which they may be parties to resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of other intergovernmental organizations or established under any international agreement."
In the definitions section, the WHO-IHR defines a PHEIC as "an extraordinary event which is determined as provided in these Regulations i. to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and ii. to potentially require a coordinated international response."
There's a schematic diagram at Annex 2, called a "decision instrument for the assessment and notification of events that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern." One of the three potential pathways mentions an "algorithm" but I haven't located any other references to an algorithm in a keyword search of my files. (That doesn't mean there isn't an algorithm. I just don't have more information about it currently.)
In a Federal Register notice Feb. 6, 2020 (85 FR 7874) about quarantine and airline reporting requirements, HHS-CDC used the WHO-IHR definition in a footnote: "Under the International Health Regulations, a public health emergency of international concern is 'an extraordinary event' that constitutes a 'public health risk to other States through international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response."
The 2005 WHO-IHR language is general, circular, or self-referential: "unusual" or "unexpected," cases of disease, events "of potential concern" or events of "unknown causes or sources," with cases identified "as per WHO case definitions."
I also located a July 22, 2022 WHO document about case definitions, which uses general clinical symptoms (cough, fever) or epidemiological criteria (contact with probable or confirmed cases), or positive-result from non-validated diagnostic tests.
There may be other provisions in the 2022, 2023 or 2024 amendments that Roguski would be able to describe and explain their applicability to your question.
My provisional understanding is that the WHO-IHR framework is the same unilateral, no-physical-evidence-required, no-validated-case-or-causality-validation-methods-required framework as the US federal framework that centers on the unfounded, unilateral assertions of the HHS Secretary.
To the extent there are no firm, physical criteria or requirements for validated physical/analytical methods capable of validating the stable identity of an allegedly disease-causing pathogen and its capacity to cause disease, and no procedures in the WHO-IHR for challenging claims that a PHEIC is occurring, I don't think there are any legal bases or venues on or in which the falsity or invalidity of such claims could be brought for review and reversal.
In other words, my interpretation of the PHEIC legal instruments is that, like the US federal and state laws, the WHO-IHR is also written so that no one can be found in legal violation of a rule they were never required to comply with, nor can anyone be found to have failed to meet an evidentiary standard they were never required to meet.
Deception, fraud, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, etc. are legal, because there are no legal obligations to provide evidence, and no standards of evidence against which claims can be tested, and no procedures or venues through which claims can be challenged and tested.
Sometimes I think of it in terms of criminal prosecutions in a context in which framing a human suspect has been legalized. It's as if criminal prosecutors were not required to present any evidence that a crime occurred, nor any evidence that the human suspect had means, motive or opportunity to commit the crime, nor that he or she actually committed the crime. And it's as if the prosecutor were not required to go before any fact-finding tribunal (judge or jury), because evidence and evidentiary-review are both irrelevant to the prosecution and conviction process. The conviction occurs simultaneous to the allegation.
In the public health emergency context, allegedly stable, allegedly-disease-causing pathogens are framed, and they are not entitled to any due process. They're convicted as of the allegation, and all the pandemic management policies and programs unfold from that point in time onward.
Thanks. This is the exact document I was studying yesterday. I will get back to you about this later today1 — and provide more context as to why I am asking and make connections to other things I’ve analyzed — but for now:
The “algorithm” is probably what is on pages 45-46. (It’s a rubric of sorts — a protocol or tool for guiding the decision to declare a PHEIC.)
“The legal definition of a PHEIC is clear, as ‘an extraordinary event that may constitute a public health risk to other countries through international spread of disease and may require an international coordinated response.’ The purpose of the declaration is to focus international attention on acute public health risks that ‘require coordinated mobilisation of extraordinary resources by the international community’ for prevention and response.”
As far as I can tell, [U.S. Health and Human Secretary Director] Azar needed the WHO PHEIC on Jan 30, 2020 in order to issue his Jan 31, 2020 decree. LMK if you see it differently. I could be wrong.
I don’t think Azar needed the WHO PHEIC, for several reasons.
To the extent that the worldwide, coordinated pandemic preparedness system is a deception project jointly executed by the US HHS-DoD-DHS-whole-of-government and the UN-World Health Organization, I think they have coordinated the drafting and adoption of the legal instruments each institution relies on as authorization for their respective actions.
As a coordinated team interested in maximizing public acceptance of the necessity for any pandemic preparedness and response at all, and government and WHO authority to actually carry out pandemic response programs, US-HHS-DoD and WHO have a mutual interest in projecting the credibility of both institutions/conglomerates, by referring to each others' acts as providing further support for the course of action taken by each institution.
So while I don't think HHS/Azar legally needed the WHO-PHEIC to conduct his own acts and direct the acts of other officials in the United States, he benefited from the WHO-PHEIC/Director-General's performance because the WHO performance added weight and apparent credibility to HHS/Azar's own acts, and the WHO-PHEIC/Director-General's performance benefited from Azar's US-HHS acts, because Azar's performance added weight and apparent credibility to the World Health Organization's acts.
Neither legal framework requires either performer to provide physical evidence that "something is spreading," or poses a threat to health, nor to submit any such evidence to any fact-finding, evidentiary-review tribunal.
Here are the reasons why I don't think Azar needed the WHO-PHEIC.
One reason is that one of the statutes under whose authority Azar acted also authorizes Defense Secretary and Secretary of Homeland Security (in addition to HHS Secretary) to make determinations that emergencies exist.
The section of the FDCA actually used by Azar (HHS Secretary) was 21 USC 360bbb-3(b)(1)(C)
21 USC 360bbb-3(b)
“Declaration of emergency or threat justifying emergency authorized use.
(b) Declaration of emergency or threat justifying emergency authorized use
(1) In general. The [HHS] Secretary may make a declaration that the circumstances exist justifying the authorization under this subsection for a product on the basis of—
(A) a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of
attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;
(B) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States
military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50, of attack with—
(i) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or
(ii) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;
(C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or
(D) the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.”
---
Those determinations and declarations under Title 21 (FDCA) are related to PHE and "material threat" determinations issued under Title 42 (PHSA) at 42 USC 247d(a), 42 USC 247d(b)(1), 42 USC 247d-6b(c)(2) and 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(1) [PREP Act declarations pertaining to the production and use of countermeasures]
42 USC 247d(a)
“Emergencies. If the Secretary determines, after consultation with such public health officials as may be necessary, that-
(1) a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency; or
(2) a public health emergency, including significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks, otherwise exists,
the Secretary may take such action as may be appropriate to respond to the public health emergency, including making grants, providing awards for expenses, and entering into contracts and conducting and supporting investigations into the cause, treatment, or prevention of a disease or disorder as described in paragraphs (1) and (2)...”
42 USC 247d(b)(1)
“Public Health Emergency Fund
(1) In general. There is established in the Treasury a fund to be designated as the "Public Health Emergency Fund" to be made available to the Secretary without fiscal year limitation to carry out subsection (a) only if a public health emergency has been declared by the Secretary under such subsection or if the Secretary determines there is the significant potential for a public health emergency, to allow the Secretary to rapidly respond to the immediate needs resulting from such public health emergency or potential public health emergency. The Secretary shall plan for the expedited distribution of funds to appropriate agencies and entities.”
42 USC 247d-6b(c)(2).
“Material threat. The Homeland Security Secretary, in consultation with the [HHS] Secretary and the heads of other agencies as appropriate, shall on an ongoing basis-
(i) assess current and emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents; and (ii) determine which of such agents present a material threat against the United States population sufficient to affect national security.”
42 USC 247d-6d(b)(1)
“(b) Declaration by Secretary (1) Authority to issue [PREP Act] declaration
Subject to paragraph (2), if the Secretary makes a determination that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk that the disease, condition, or threat may in the future constitute such an emergency, the Secretary may make a declaration, through publication in the Federal Register, recommending, under conditions as the Secretary may specify, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures, and stating that subsection (a) [liability protections] is in effect with respect to the activities so recommended.”
---
Another reason why I don't think Azar legally needed the WHO-PHEIC is that the quarantine regulations (42 CFR 70 and 71) define “public health emergency” as having five legal sources, any one of which is legally sufficient, and two of which are unrelated to WHO acts:
"Public health emergency as used in this part means:
Any communicable disease event as determined by the [CDC] Director with either documented or significant potential for regional, national, or international communicable disease spread or that is highly likely to cause death or serious illness if not properly controlled; or
Any communicable disease event described in a declaration by the Secretary pursuant to 319(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d(a)); or
Any communicable disease event the occurrence of which is notified to the World Health Organization, in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the International Health Regulations, as one that may constitute a Public Health Emergency of International Concern; or
Any communicable disease event the occurrence of which is determined by the Director-General of the World Health Organization, in accordance with Article 12 of the International Health Regulations, to constitute a Public Health Emergency of International Concern; or
Any communicable disease event for which the Director-General of the World Health Organization, in accordance with Articles 15 or 16 of the International Health Regulations, has issued temporary or standing recommendations for purposes of preventing or promptly detecting the occurrence or reoccurrence of the communicable disease."
Several state AGs petitioned HHS to remove reasons 3, 4 and 5 from the US quarantine regulations definitions in July 2022; their petition was denied by HHS in October 2022; two of the states filed a federal complaint in January 2023; their complaint was dismissed in August 2023.
I think the most detailed attempt I've made at untangling the overlapping, mutually-reinforcing relationships between FDCA-authorized determinations and declarations and PHSA-authorized determinations and declarations is this post: Dec. 6, 2023
You may have addressed this somewhere, so please forgive me as I continue looking at the timeframe from a different angle related to my/colleagues’ interests.
Azar declaring public health emergency on 31 January 2020 (day after WHO issues PHEIC), but backdating to 27 January 2020. Significance, from your point of view?
As a result of confirmed cases of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), on this date and after consultation with public health officials as necessary, I, Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to the authority vested in me under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, do hereby determine that a public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide. https://substack.com/home/post/p-165545871
I don’t know the reason for the backdating of Azar’s determination issued under PHSA 319(a).
Some possibilities:
1) Possibly Azar/his handlers made the decision on Jan. 27, 2020, but didn’t make the public announcement until Jan. 31, 2020.
2) Possibly Azar/his handlers were trying to coordinate the date with some of the reporting data about alleged cases in other countries.
3) Possibly he/his handlers were trying to coordinate the date with Congressional bills.
4) Possibly Azar/his handlers were trying to coordinate the date with other activities (such as hospital homicide protocols) that would be authorized/exempt from prosecution through the determination and declaration.
These speculations (of mine) are the result of some keyword searches in my files that got hits in a 3,234-page collection of Fauci emails obtained by FOIA, in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and in the CARES Act.
As you continue following this thread, please keep in mind that there are several different forms of “determination” and “declaration.”
Key point (for your current project purposes) is that one form of determination does not have to be published in the Federal Register, was issued under PHSA 319(a) aka 42 USC 247d(a), has to be renewed every 90 days, and a few other things.
That’s the form Azar announced Jan. 31, 2020, which he and Becerra renewed every 90 days for a few years, and allowed the last one to expire March 15, 2023.
Other forms of determination and declaration — with different termination mechanisms (termination dates selected by HHS Secretary with no evidence required, no standards of evidence, no evidentiary review) — are issued under FDCA 564 aka 21 USC 360bbb-3 and under PHSA 319(b) aka 42 USC 247d-6d(b).
Those forms are published as notices in the Federal Register and, as far as I know, most of them have been backdated to Feb. 4, 2020, which has to do with some of the military contracting events and WHO vaccine candidate documents. The current termination date for the current Covid PREP Act declaration, for example, is Dec. 31, 2029, under the terms published by Becerra in Federal Register Dec. 11, 2024 (89 FR 99875) and being left in place by Kennedy.
I tried to make a table a few years ago, but didn’t finish it. Screenshot of the row about the Jan. 31, 2020 announcement is below.
The fact that there are many forms of determinations and declarations, authorized by several different legal provisions under the PHE framework (plus others under Stafford Act, National Emergencies Act, Defense Production Act and others), is one reason why I’ve tried to emphasize the redundancies built into the legal kill box system.
Even if some of the laws are found invalid and/or nullified or repealed, there are others already in place and in force to allow the mutilation and killing programs to proceed without substantive legal impediments, and the authorizations for the programs are shifted over time as part of the shell game, to make the program-authorizing laws difficult to identify and difficult to remove from law.
Will put some links to ASPR sites that might be helpful to you, in a reply to this reply.
Hockett (initial reply here, refined reply here and below), 23 June 2025
In my opinion (as of today), Azar was not making any decisions per se; he was following orders or a protocol and simply doing “what came next". (You probably agree, given your use of “handlers”.)
Practically speaking, I don’t see how he would have made the 31 Jan 2020 statement without there having been a PHEIC issued by WHO on 30 Jan 2020. My guess is that 27 Jan 2020 as the back-date is related to the Chicago couple being the first h2h transmission. (They weren’t h2h transmission, even if we believe in viruses, as traditionally defined woodhouse76.com/p/quest…)
If there’s no “spread,” then there’s no basis for an emergency, per the criteria being applied. There’s no demonstrated “danger” if it’s not “spreading” in the U.S.
“SARS-CoV-2…constitutes a credible risk of a future public health emergency” replaced the original, Jan. 27, 2020 wording: “SARS-CoV-2…constitutes a public health emergency.”
I am wondering if something was discovered or disclosed that necessitated the change from (what I view as) a more-definitive statement about there being a public health emergency to a less-definitive statement.
Do you have any sense of why that happened in May 2023? I also note that the language “credible risk of” is threat-assessment language, a la DHS.
Further interactions or posts related to this thread will be added here.
