The International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response or Pandemic Treaty is a proposed international agreement to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The 194 World Health Organization (WHO) member states agreed in December 2021 to begin negotiations on a global pandemic treaty, aiming for a draft agreement to be finalized by May 2024 for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly.
World Health Assembly agrees to launch process to develop historic global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response
April 2020 W.H.O. leader Tedros DOWNLOAD TREATY
People in countries with stay-at-home orders are understandably frustrated with being confined. But the world will not and cannot go back. There must be a new normal, a world that’s healthier, safer and better prepared.
The following are excerpts taken from the proposed unfinalized draft.
W.H.O. Secretariat to play the leading, convening and coordinating role in operational aspects of an emergency response to a pandemic.
Under this treaty W.H.O. members must enforce orders from the W.H.O. and if they don’t they will be sanctioned.
The treaty demands that national and global coordinated actions to address the misinformation, disinformation, and stigmatization, that undermine public health.
W.H.O. Secretariat to build capacity to deploy proactive countermeasures against misinformation and social media attacks.
Develop standards for producing a digital version of the international certificate of vaccine nation and prophylaxis and W.H.O. will be in charge of the digitalization of all health forms.
W.H.O. will also share real time information about travel measures.
W.H.O. will assume control over manufacturing Vaccines
A truly global end-to-end platform for vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics, and essential supplies, shifting from a model where innovation is left to the market to a model aimed at the delivering global public goods.
None of this is going to be optional because an amendment to the treaty from the Biden administration contains a provision for a compliance committee. it provides that every member country in the W.H.O. must:
Inform the W.H.O. about the establishment of its National competent authority responsible for the overall implementation of the protocols that will be recognized and held accountable.
Will the treaty be legally binding?
Recent academic commentary by Clare Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner and Maike Voss suggested that the WHA’s mandate for the INB (In December 2021, at its second-ever special session, the World Health Assembly established an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB), leaves room for an outcome that is not legally binding. They suggest:
The language of ‘a legally binding instrument to be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution’ was changed to ‘WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument … with a view to adoption under Article 19, or under other provisions of the WHO Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB’ (emphasis added), meaning that the resulting ‘pandemic treaty’ may not actually be a treaty at all, but some other instrument, lacking the legally binding force of a treaty.29 However, the initial proponents of the initiative, including the UK, E and others, have supported a legally binding treaty at this stage, with the EU suggesting that an “international instrument” would also be binding in international law.
The substantive suggestions called for, as summarized by these experts, include:
Anchoring the treaty in human rights and addressing the principles of the right to health, equity, solidarity, transparency, trust, and accountability;
• Using a One Health approach for pandemic prevention and early detection;
• Stronger health systems information and reporting mechanisms; including a better use of digital technology for data collection and sharing;
• A reform of the WHO alarm mechanism, the public health emergency of international control (PHEIC) declaration process and travel and travel restrictions;
• Pathogen and genomic data sharing;
• Resilience to and response to pandemics, including universal access to medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical equipment and treatments as well as resilient supply chains, technology transfer;
• Investments in health system, strengthening and increased financing for pandemic preparedness and response;
• Stronger international health framework with a strengthened WHO at the centre and increased global coordination;
• Reinforcing legal obligations and norms of global health security and standard settings of health care systems;
• Coordination of research and development (R&D).21 Proposals from stakeholders on what should be included in the treaty were heard by the INB at public hearings in April 2022 and can be accessed on the INB’s website.
Disagreement & pushback Against the W.H.O. Plan
Dr Scott Atlas was interviewed on May 2019
This seems like an enormous amount of power flowing out of our country to an international unelected body?
Dr Scott Atlas M.D. is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution. Fact check rating
The world health organization as well as other organizations like the world economic forum are trying to set rules that countries must obey, Tedros himself said these rules are obligatory. This is not the role of any international organization. These organizations, including the CDC, are supposed to be advisory. They’re not supposed to set rules and laws. That is a complete reversal of what should happen in a free society – if we still live in one? The World Health Organization has been an egregious failure. I cannot outline all of it, but it began at the beginning of this pandemic when they were grossly wrong by orders of magnitude about the basic data on infections and fatality rates. They politicized and were completely impotent in doing the one thing they should. And that
was getting transparency and information from China at the beginning when when it counted. They disregarded all the evidence that is known in biology about symptomatic spread being not that important, about masks etc. They attempted to redefine basic biology by changing the definition of herd immunity. They tried to get rid of immunity from recovery from infection and somehow make it seem like there was only immunity from a vaccine. It was purely agenda driven pseudoscience, what they would call “misinformation”… Centralized power organizations, including our own government, were reckless. They were unethical in doing the lockdowns. Why was it unethical? They actually imposed a policy that was more harmful to the very vulnerable people that they purported to care about, children, the poor people. They were harmed. But the affluent were spared by their policies. And they did all this, usurping all the known laws and constitutional rights and freedoms that people in free societies have… Cannot have these increasing powerful organizations grabbing more power over free citizens. We need the agencies just for information. And it’s got to be transparent. We have to have oversight of their information. And they should have absolutely zero obligatory authority over any individual and over any Nation
Conclusion: This treaty brings nations further into the grip of a One World Government. Of course nations will always be permitted to keep their flags and national anthems because with out them it would be difficult to hold the Olympics. The Olympics generates big revenues for many important people as does World Soccer, FIFA.
The second less obvious major implication of this treaty is the inclusions of “Anchoring the treaty in human rights and addressing the principles of the right to health, equity…” What exactly does this mean? Better question is – What could it mean? Could it mean that some man in man in Africa needs a heart and lung transplant but his “nation” cannot provide it for him, therefore, it becomes the mandated responsibility of the signatories of the treaty to provide it for him. Your countries health care has become the health care system to the world paid for by the citizens of that ‘nation”
Canada is committed to ditching a policy that rejects immigrants because they’re sick or disabled and could be a drag on the health system, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen says in November 2017:
“From a principled perspective, the current excessive demand provision policy simply does not align with our country’s values of inclusion of person with disabilities in Canadian society,” he said during an appearance at the House of Commons immigration committee Wednesday.
Hussen didn’t say how the provision would be changed, but said repealing it entirely is one option on the table. CBC full article.