Response to interpellation 2023/24:406 on the revision of the IHR
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that Sweden participates in the international work to strengthen global preparedness 1 2. KD emphasizes that a revised IHR does not mean that the WHO's Secretary-General receives powers to decide on Swedish pandemic management 1 2 and that Sweden monitors that no Swedish legislation is compromised 2. KD considers that Sweden needs increased international cooperation because health threats do not recognize national borders 3. KD argues that the IHR needs to be modernized and that a pandemic treaty increases transparency 4. KD emphasizes that vaccines save lives and are science-based 4. KD denies that Sweden would give up its self-determination 3 and argues that Sweden can always withdraw from the agreements 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me how the Swedish government will act in the event that a vote on the revision of the International Health Regulations, IHR, becomes relevant during the World Health Assembly meeting on May 24, 2024.
Elsa Widding has also asked me if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of whether a correct vote was conducted regarding the amendments to the international health regulations on 28 May 2022, and if I can, in that case, account for the outcome of the analysis.
In a debate on November 24, 2023, in response to the interpellations 2023/24:172, 2023/24:173 and 2023/24:203, I answered 16 questions from Elsa Widding to me, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health and Social Affairs regarding the WHO's powers linked to ongoing negotiations on a global pandemic treaty and the revision of the IHR within the framework of the World Health Organization, WHO.
The Covid-19 pandemic paralyzed entire societies around the world and also exposed fundamental deficiencies in global preparedness and countries' ability to respond to extensive health crises. Covid-19 is a clear example that pandemics are global and that international cooperation is required both to prevent transboundary threats to human health and to strengthen preparedness for the next crisis. It is of the utmost importance that Sweden participates in the international work to address the lessons learned after the Covid-19 pandemic.
WHO's 194 member states have decided to work together to develop a global pandemic treaty and update the IHR. The purpose of the work is to make the world's countries safer and better equipped for the next pandemic. All member states have had the opportunity to propose amendments to the IHR - over 300 proposals have been received, and far from all will become a reality. The mandate for the negotiating group includes targeted amendments to the IHR. This includes changes that improve the functionality of the IHR and that respond to new needs that have not been identified previously. It does not include a changed direction or scope of the current regulation.
The overall Swedish objective with both a pandemic treaty and a revised IHR is to, through a purposeful and updated international regulatory framework, strengthen the multilateral system's ability to prevent new pandemics as well as contribute to good national, regional and global preparedness and response capacity in order to avoid that outbreaks or health threats develop into pandemics and serious global crises.
Once again, I want to be clear that a revised IHR will not mean that individual states' obligation or ability to act in the event of a pandemic will disappear. A revised IHR will also not mean that the WHO Director-General is given powers to decide on Swedish pandemic management. This is something neither Sweden nor other member states would accept. The work to revise the IHR is based on a consensus among WHO's 194 member states that the covid-19 pandemic revealed several deficiencies in the international community's ability to handle a health crisis of a global character.
As I also mentioned in the previous debate, the negotiations on a pandemic treaty and the revision of the IHR consist of multilateral negotiations, in which Sweden participates on the same grounds as other member states in WHO, and are also carried out in other policy areas in the UN system. An example of a convention in the health area that Sweden has stood behind is WHO's convention for tobacco control, The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. For the government, the ongoing negotiations on a pandemic treaty and a revised IHR are about achieving a purposeful and modern international regulatory framework that shall strengthen the international community's ability to prevent and manage new pandemics.
During the World Health Assembly 2022, decisions were made regarding changes to, among others, Article 59 of the IHR. The changes aimed, among other things, to reduce the time for the entry into force of upcoming amendments and additions to the IHR. Said amendment did therefore not involve any change in substance to the IHR, that is, how the member states shall handle a health crisis, but solely the time span between decisions on new changes and the entry into force of these. This proposal for amendment of the IHR has been prepared within the Government Offices in the same manner as other proposals for amendment.
The negotiations on a revised IHR are still ongoing, and there are not yet any fully negotiated articles. Elsa Widding's question regarding a possible vote is therefore raised too early. The negotiations on revisions of IHR are expected to continue until May 2024.
When a finalized proposal is in place, the government will take a position on it and the Riksdag's approval will be sought, if required.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! The Minister's answer is astonishing. I am not saying that the Minister is a useful idiot, but he behaves exactly like one.
Of the 16 questions I raised in the previous debate, you actually did not answer a single one, Jakob Forssmed. We are now approaching a situation where Sweden will not be able to act of its own accord. We are approaching a situation where more and more people are dying as a result of the vaccinations and as a result of a corrupt world health organization. We must put a stop to this.
The government is sleepwalking straight into a catastrophe. We are talking about a top-down strategy for global public health that is enshrined in international law. At the top of this strategy, we will soon have our sole source of truth for everything related to pandemics, the WHO's Director-General, who, as if nothing radical changes, will have sole authority to decide when and where these new rules shall be used. You must read what is written in the articles!
And let's not forget: the WHO's Secretary-General is appointed through a non-transparent and non-democratic process.
If these proposals are approved, the member states will be urged to commit to following WHO's recommendations and to recognize WHO not as an organization under the control of countries, but rather as a coordinating authority for international public health interventions during international threats to human health. Whether a threat exists or not is decided by WHO, which is predominantly sponsored by the vaccine industry. It all stands to be read in Article 13 a, Jakob Forssmed.
Jakob Forssmed speaks about lessons and participating in the international work. Of course, it is good to draw lessons from the covid-19 pandemic. That was also why I went to Stavanger, the famous conference where various professors and lawyers went to discuss exactly this: lessons and how we avoid making the same mistakes again.
There is no reason for WHO's recommendations to be legally binding, period! There is also no reason to remove passages about human rights, Jakob Forssmed. An important lesson is that WHO did most things wrong, not right, during the pandemic, and that Sweden actually fared quite well because we did not listen as much to the corrupt WHO as many other countries did. I will return to this.
We also know now what it was that drove the pandemic. It was the PCR tests and nothing else. We can have a separate interpellation debate about that.
Sweden shall participate in international work, says Jakob Forssmed. Of course we shall do that. But it does not mean that we must commit to legally binding requirements. All constitutional protections for Swedes' rights and the nation's sovereignty during pandemics lapse with IHR if the proposals are passed. Does the minister understand then why it is so urgent that we see these proposals before they go to a vote?
Has the Minister further reflected on the fact that the majority of the UN's member states are full or half-dictatorships and what implications this could have for the final result, which you now think we don't even need to read? The Minister speaks of an improved functionality of the IHR that responds to new needs that were not previously identified. It is therefore argued that the world's dictatorships and politically questionable countries shall be allowed to decide that Sweden's sovereignty and constitution could potentially be set aside by such states deciding on rules regarding possible pandemics. How does the government intend to act? Do you think at all?
The Minister claims once again that the WHO's Secretary-General is not given the authority to decide on Swedish pandemic management. Neither Sweden nor other member states would accept that. Can we not assume, Madam Speaker, that Jakob Forssmed is at least literate? In that case, I recommend that he reads the articles that I refer to in my question. That the Secretary-General would not be given increased powers must be something that the Minister has heard from Tedros Ghebreyesus himself, you know, the one who was reported to the tribunal in The Hague for genocide not particularly long ago.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I want to remind the members that we shall not use insulting judgments and expressions here in the chamber. We also address the minister as "the minister" and by name, not with "you".
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the interpellation. It provides an opportunity to set the record straight on certain matters.
I began by explaining that all the proposed amendments that have been submitted have also been published for everyone to see. I also explained that all of these will, of course, not be included in a final revision of the IHR, far from it.
The Swedish position is very clear. We believe that very small revisions of the IHR are needed. Certain modernizations are needed regarding digitalization and other matters so that we can counter international health threats even better. Sweden also participates in the work in this working group and monitors that there will be a good and reasonable review of the IHR and that it will also not set any Swedish legislation out of play – naturally.
We have already implemented IHR in Swedish legislation. Does Member Elsa Widding think that is wrong? It is, of course, in accordance with Swedish legislation, just as when we sign other international treaties, conventions, and agreements. We do it in good democratic order and according to the principles of the rule of law.
Sweden will, of course, not agree to the WHO Secretary-General being given the type of powers that the member describes. Even if some country has submitted it as a proposal, we in Sweden do not think so and will also monitor it, both ourselves and through our coordination in the EU. It is a matter of course.
However, it is important that countries report and are clear and transparent when it comes to different types of international health threats. One of the problems with the pandemic was, after all, that they were not.
I share Elsa Widding's frustration that there are dictatorships in the world. But we have the system we have with the UN, where countries are included regardless of democratic status. Then we have other organizations where democracies cooperate in a good way, which I think is good - OECD, EU and others. I do, however, think it is reasonable that dictatorships also participate and report, have a transparency and prepare themselves to handle pandemics. It is absolutely necessary for us to manage this type of threat - that we receive information, that we can prepare ourselves and that measures are taken to limit the spread of infection in different ways so that people do not die.
This is about protecting life and health, just as vaccines are about protecting life and health. It is important that we continue to cooperate on that.
The interpellation concerns the IHR, but in parallel, a pandemic treaty is also being negotiated. It is important that we cooperate more in the world on, for example, antibiotic resistance and those types of issues. If we cannot curb multi-resistant outbreaks and have functioning antibiotics to meet them, the capacity of the Swedish healthcare system is at risk in the future.
It is also a dimension in the negotiations that is important for Sweden. We need information and to prepare jointly in order to actually be able to secure Swedish healthcare moving forward. That requires other countries to also make efforts to both limit the spread of infection and prepare for pandemics, inform and ensure that they help each other spread information, in order to be able to meet this in the best way.
It is not about putting any Swedish constitution out of play or making the WHO some kind of world-governing organization when it comes to pandemic management. It is not relevant.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! The Minister has misunderstood. The 300 amendments the Minister speaks of arrived in the autumn of 2022. Sweden stood behind them in the EU. It was the Czech Republic that submitted the proposals, as the Czech Republic was the presiding country. They are incorporated into the proposal that arrived in February 2023, which is the last proposal we have seen. So it is, unfortunately.
What is Sweden doing then? We are doing nothing about how those articles look now. It is actually important.
The Minister stated that "the covid-19 pandemic exposed several shortcomings in the international community's ability to manage a health crisis of a global character". We know quite well now that the vaccination campaign was not a justifiable and reasonable measure in the interest of public health. The campaign should have been rejected as soon as it became clear that the side effects and the number of deaths were of an unprecedented magnitude. This became particularly clear when Pfizer released the data that they wanted to keep secret for 75 years, Jakob Forssmed.
WHO, which is funded by the vaccine industry, is a catastrophe and insists on recommending vaccines, which are a gene therapy, that kill. You can get Pfizer's data, which I have here, from me if you want to devote some time to them.
How can one be social minister or health minister and not worry about the fact that overmortality surged straight upwards when the vaccination campaign began? Look at the statistics, Jakob Forssmed! Go to World in Data! It is up to 20 percent in several countries with high vaccination rates; I believe Finland tops at 40 percent. Mortality in a country is normally quite stable.
I assume that the Minister knows the difference between process 1 and process 2 for the production of synthetic mRNA, where m: stands for modified RNA. We now know that the lipid nanoparticles penetrate all organs in the body. We also know the consequences of that. You surely know that in process 1, testing was conducted on a large population, 40,000 people. But when this was to be sent out to all the world's countries and in billions of doses, a different process was run where one did not clear out the DNA residues with this enzyme. That is what makes the vaccines today largely contaminated.
In addition to the cancer cases, we have a problem with the fact that cardiovascular diseases have increased rapidly. Despite this catastrophic development, the government shrugs its shoulders.
Jakob Forssmed allows the vaccination of small children with a vaccine that is completely untested and which does not help against a virus that has mutated further. It is quite grotesque. The Minister thinks it is good that children receive a shot with gene therapy where there is a high risk that the content is contaminated. We have all the scientific studies required to be able to state this.
It is a vaccine that is anything but safe and effective. Still, a person who has been reported to the tribunal in The Hague for complicity in genocide is to be given free rein to shut down an entire world and declare a pandemic for whatever small new influenza virus may be. He works for the vaccine industry. Why are we listening to him instead of to science? Do we want to make a mistake?
Has the Minister even considered why cancer cases have increased dramatically even in younger age groups? Has the Minister studied, for example, the age group 15-44 years? Certainly not! But a number of prominent cancer researchers and a large number of professors have, including Doctor Angus Dalgleish, who is the foremost in the United Kingdom. I can quote one of them: First I saw the blood clots. Then I saw blood cancer, leukemia and lymphoma. Now I see the solid problem cancer at a rate I have never seen. Patients who had been stable and cancer-free after one, two, five or ten years have now had their cancer return. It is back with certainty, and it does not respond to traditional therapies.
I believe that more and more of us are realizing that this is how it is. If you had come to my seminar, Minister, you would have met many chief physicians who work clinically today and who see this in their everyday lives.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I want to remind again not to say "you" but instead say "the Minister" or "the Minister" [the minister], now that we have Social Minister Jakob Forssmed from Kristdemokraterna here.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! There are no finalized articles or treaties for the government to take a position on. But we are, as stated, actively participating in the working group that all countries have the opportunity to participate in, which is working on the review and revision of the International Health Regulations, IHR.
Sweden sees no need for major changes, but the regulatory framework needs to be modernized. I think it is good if we can do that.
It is also good if we can negotiate a pandemic treaty so that we do not end up in the type of situation we did when the covid-19 pandemic hit the world so hard. There was no transparency, and many countries were not sufficiently prepared for this. It made it difficult to be able to act against that which paralyzed our societies.
This debate is not specifically about vaccines but about IHR. But the vaccines save lives. It is not the case that science agrees with Elsa Widding. Science, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the research community, have awarded the Nobel Prize to those who invented the mRNA vaccines. They have seen what opportunities it creates when it comes to stopping disease, acting against disease and death and saving lives. That is what allowed us to open up our societies.
Many other vaccines have also had enormous health effects in the world. Child mortality has fallen drastically in many parts of the world, not least in our country. Infections claim 7 million lives every year. Many lives could be saved if we, all around the world, expand vaccination efforts against the most common infectious diseases. That is a fact.
Effective vaccines in healthcare are one of the most beautiful things we have in the world. This is followed up closely by authorities through thorough studies and a strict regulatory framework for how it should be done. One weighs the benefits against the risks of the vaccine, as one always needs to do. One reports side effects and consequences of the vaccines openly and transparently on the authorities' websites. That is how we work with this, science-based and research-based. And we see that they have enormously large and good effects for our societies.
Vaccines are not free of side effects. But when the vaccines are approved, the benefits have been clearly weighed against the risks and it has been concluded that they save lives, which also applies to the latest vaccines. Most recently last week, a study was released showing how vaccinated pregnant women and their children were positively affected during the pandemic. So, studies are constantly coming out that confirm this.
But my point is, again, that there are no pre-negotiated articles. I have been clear about Sweden's position in these negotiations. It is not about doing anything that contradicts the Swedish constitution, but in exactly the same way as when it concerns other international conventions, we shall ensure that we get a regulatory framework that is as good and purposeful as possible without compromising Swedish interests.
Sweden also always, at any time, has the possibility to leave these types of agreements and deals. That is also included in this. We in Sweden, of course, decide for ourselves about our own future.
I have a question for Elsa Widding. Sweden has for many years now implemented the international health regulations in its legislation. Is that wrong?
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! It is not wrong to implement IHR. But then it is obviously important to look at what IHR looks like. That is what the question is about.
When it comes to the Nobel Prize, we can only conclude that it has obviously been captured, just like so many other institutions. Obama received the Peace Prize. Someone also received the prize for lobotomy. The list can be made quite long. It is a catastrophe in itself.
I still want to point out that the proposed design of the IHR and WHO's powers, if accepted by democratic states, would be the worst of the monstrosities of indirect democracy created internationally. The vote in May 2022 did not go correctly. According to Article 55, the proposals must, as stated, be made visible to the member states four months before the vote. This has not occurred. The question is whether it was even a vote. In a letter to WHO, twelve members of the European Parliament have raised exactly that question. There are also recordings from the meeting to look at.
That the question should have been addressed in the government sounds strange, as the shortened ratification period was something that was decided upon quite suddenly. It may be something for the KU to investigate regarding on what grounds the government has made that decision.
I consider not stopping this to be a criminal act. Look at what happened to the health minister in Italy, who is now being investigated for murder. It is also happening for the head of the medicines agency in Italy. Have you, Jakob Forssmed, wondered when it will be your turn? When will you be investigated for murder – Minister?
Working Group IHR is now conspiring openly and shamelessly to ignore the rule of law principle and to violate Article 55 again. Working Group IHR has held further meetings from February 5-9, 2024, which have just taken place. Even in April, they will continue their secret negotiations - after the deadline of January 27, 2024.
A few deeply harmful changes in the regulatory system are intended to be introduced, and the hope is now that the countries' requirements for changes will eliminate the weaknesses. But it is not particularly likely, given the total ignorance that our own government shows.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I would like to remind the member once again not to use insulting judgments and expressions and that the Minister for Social Affairs is to be addressed as "the Minister for Social Affairs" or "the Minister", not with "you".
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if I have in any way been accused of murder.
Good! Great! Then it is settled.
My mandate concerns the lives and health of Sweden and Swedes, but also the lives and health of citizens out in the world. That is what guides me in my work. It is also how I have come to the conclusion, just as almost the entire assembly has come to the conclusion, that we need international cooperation to be able to counter pandemics and international health threats. They do not recognize the national borders we have set up, but the threats move across national borders. Then we need to cooperate, be transparent, and report when outbreaks of various infectious diseases occur so that we can act in the best way together. That is what a pandemic treaty and a more updated version of IHR aim for, which are more modern and where we draw on the lessons from the pandemic.
This work is important so that we can meet the health threats that I know will come even in the future. New pandemics will come. There is a very serious situation with antibiotic resistance, which we need to meet in a much better way than today so that we can secure our citizens' lives and health in a good way in the future.
This guides me and the government in our work. We naturally have no ambitions, and will not agree to, introducing the type of changes in the treaties and conventions that would mean that Sweden gives up its self-determination or its opportunities to manage pandemics and other health threats in a good way. But we need increased cooperation in the issues.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.