Remember World Health Organisation (WHO)? The UN body covered up the origins of the coronavirus pandemic by praising China and claiming that human-to-human transmission was not possible when the virus was only concentrated in the middle kingdom? The same body that conducted a hasty and corrupted investigation into the origins of the virus and gave a clean chit to its Chinese overlords? Yes, the same benevolent WHO has now come up with something far more dramatic and sinister.
Reportedly, at the World Health Assembly Special Session (WHASS) earlier this month, on the behest of some ‘world leaders’, WHO commenced negotiations on drafting an international framework, treaty, or accord for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
At the ongoing 75th World Health Assembly (May 22 to 28) in Geneva, Switzerland — WHA, the decision-making body of WHO’s 194 members is expected to make further advancements regarding the treaty. It is being reported that the treaty, once drafted in full and passed — could grant WHO unprecedented biosecurity powers to intervene in a country in the event of a future outbreak.
What does the treaty say?
The first round of negotiations towards the pandemic treaty was held on February 24, 2022. Under the decision, the health organisation established an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft and negotiate the contents of the pandemic treaty in compliance with Article 19 of the WHO Constitution.
Under the pandemic treaty, countries are expected to perform data sharing and genome sequencing of emerging viruses and equitable distribution of vaccines and drugs and related research throughout the world.
The massive flaws of the treaty
While all this looks just and good on paper, the pandemic treaty grants overarching powers to WHO to conduct its business. Reading the fine print, it is clear that WHO gets to define what a pandemic is, when a pandemic is in progress and how long a pandemic last.
Despite not having full-proof evidence that lockdowns help in taming the severity of the virus, WHO had passed a unanimous verdict to nations across the globe that full-blown lockdowns were the way to go about in flattening the COVID curve.
Imagine a similar pandemic in the future and WHO comes up with similar draconian measures and shoves it down the throats of countries. It is for this reason that countries like Brazil and India have expressed reservations about the legal nature of the treaty.
However, the EU wants the pandemic treaty to be legally binding while the USA has sent amendments eliminating a provision that would have required the WHO to “consult with an attempt to obtain verification from the state party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring in.”
Even if the pandemic treaty is not made ‘legally binding’, it will have a substantial force of international law behind it, allowing WHO to mess around in the business of sovereign nations. While big nations may be able to retaliate, WHO will grab the smaller nations by the scruff of their necks, in an attempt to serve the political interests of its masters.
What about health data security and the lab leak theory?
Moreover, the health body is extremely vague on what constitutes data sharing and how it will be secured. There is no denying the fact that WHO is infiltrated by the Chinese regime and any confidential health data could be misused. WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has deep ties with the Chinese government and his collusion could put the health data at risk of being stolen.
The pandemic treaty also talks about the equitable distribution of vaccines and drugs. But again, the truth is that such a clause will only be used to bully countries like India. WHO and the big pharma of the West tried their level best to discredit Indian vaccines and push the highly overpriced but ineffective western vaccines. Furthermore, the health body never called the western world for hoarding the vaccines and not releasing it to the smaller, poorer African or Southeast Asian nations.
Lastly, according to the meeting’s agenda, the pandemic treaty would be part of six “action tracks” focused on: healthcare systems; zoonotic outbreaks; endemic tropical diseases; food safety; antimicrobial resistance; and protecting the environment. However, the health body has conveniently skipped over the “lab safety and transparency of research” action track – presumably at the behest of the Chinese overlords who have forced WHO to not espouse the lab leak theory.
All in all, the pandemic treaty looks like a deliberate attempt to increase the power and scope of WHOs powers. If the health body was allowed its way, the world would not have opened, up until now and we would have been living in a realm of hysteria and mass misinformation. The treaty, at least in its current shape should be banned, and unless WHO is willing to be transparent and start with a clean slate, there is no need to get back to it either.
