The Fact-Checkers (Attempt To) Strike Back.

Nation First delivers the facts to the fact-checkers.

Dear friend,

I just knew it would happen. A “fact-check” of my claims regarding the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations amendments is being conducted by a government-funded media organisation right now.

---

• I knew the fact-checker would target my recent commentary and advocacy around the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments.

• The Australian Associated Press (AAP) FactCheck unit are going to try and claim that I am in false in my assertions that, under the IHR amendments, the WHO will gain control of Australian health policy, that this is being done without debate, and the the amendments removed human rights protections.

• No doubt to the chagrin of the AAP FactCheck, I was able to cite four IHR amendment clauses showing how the WHO can direct Australia’s health measures.

• I also showed AAP FactCheck how there had been no parliamentary vote or debate on the IHR amendments.

---

I opened my email inbox this afternoon and there it was: an email from the government-funded Australian Associated Press’ fact-checking unit.

Hi George,

I'm getting in touch from AAP FactCheck.

We're looking into your Facebook post claiming the government will hand over control of Australia's health policy to the World Health Organization by approving the International Health Regulations amendments.

You also claim they are doing this without debate, and that it removes human rights protections from the text.

Are you able to provide your evidence to support these claims?

Thanks,

AAP FactCheck

For full disclosure, here’s my Facebook post:

So, out of that post, the AAP FactCheck only asked me to verify three things, namely:

1. My claim that “... the Albanese Government will hand control of Australia’s health policy to the World Health Organization...”;

2. My claim that this is happening “...without a vote, without debate...”; and

3. My claim that “They removed human rights protections from the text.”

Here’s my forensic response to AAP FactCheck:

Hello,

First of all, to ensure that I can address a defamation letter correctly, should you claim that I am lying, with whom am I communicating?

I abhor your fact-checking because it has been demonstrably false on several occasions.

In fact, your email to me contains falsities, namely that my Facebook post claimed the government was "approving the International Health Regulations amendments." The process is one in which the amendments are accepted if they aren't rejected, rather than having to be approved.

To your query, I stand by the following assertions you have brought into question and provide proof via the IHR amendments themselves:

My claim: “... the Albanese Government will hand control of Australia’s health policy to the World Health Organization...”

Evidence:

Under the revised International Health Regulations (IHR), the power flow changes in four big ways:

1) Global emergencies can be declared for us, even if nothing is happening here.
The new Article 12 states: “The Director-General shall determine … whether the event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern…”

2) There is no requirement for that emergency to be inside Australia.
Once an emergency is declared, Canberra must follow WHO instructions or formally explain why it will not follow them. The latter is unlikely to occur due to international and domestic pressure for going against the advice of the World Health Organization.
Articles 15 and 16 say countries must “take into account” the WHO’s temporary and standing recommendations, which can include “medical examinations, vaccination … contact tracing, isolation or quarantine, restrictions on travel, refusal of entry or departure…”

3) A new domestic enforcement hub becomes mandatory.
Article 4(1) tells every country to set up a “National IHR Authority” that “shall coordinate the implementation of these Regulations within the jurisdiction of the State Party.”

4) The package becomes law automatically unless Australia opts out in writing.
Articles 59-61 give every nation 12 months to reject the amendments. If no letter is sent, the text is binding, with no parliamentary vote required.

Put simply, once the WHO declares an emergency, Australia is already treaty-bound to comply or justify non-compliance. That hands real leverage over lockdowns, vaccine certificates, border controls, and more to Geneva.
Hence, taking "control of Australia's health policy" is factually accurate.

2. My claim: “...without a vote, without debate...”

Evidence:

The amendments were adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly on 1 June 2024 “by consensus,” meaning there was no recorded vote even in the WHA.
Under Article 61 of the IHRs, Australia then had a window of opportunity to reject or reserve the amendments. No legislation or parliamentary motion has been introduced, let alone a debate or vote on the topic.
Hence, “without a vote, without debate” is factually accurate.

…

I have thus proven that:
The WHO can now trigger health policy obligations for Australia.
Canberra agreed to this without a parliamentary vote.
…

If you’re going to run anything from me, I would ask that the above information in bold be run in full or not at all.

Regards,

George Christensen

That’s got ’em.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

CORRECTION
In this article, I said the IHR amendments deleted the human rights clause. That was wrong. The final text still says: “The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons, and shall promote equity and solidarity.”
I relied on an old draft. I apologise. The fact-checkers got me on one point.
However, that’s the least of the concerns. The loss of national sovereignty is more of an issue and everything else I've outlined above it correct.
Australia can still reject these amendments. The deadline to opt out is 19 July 2025. Email your MP today and tell them to defend our sovereignty.

---

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

---

Authorised by G. Christensen, River Street, Mackay