WHO Treaty: Vague & Incomplete
What a waste of money and time!
Home | All Posts | Notes | Clips
A. Background
In December 2021, the World Health Assembly established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate some form of pandemic treaty to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
At present, until May 10, 2024, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and delegates from WHO member nations are meeting in Geneva. The INB want nations to reach an agreement on the proposed WHO Agreement (aka Treaty) so it can be successfully voted on at the next World Health Assembly, which convenes at the end of this month.
The Go-To place to find out how these negotiations are going is James Roguski's substack. Here is his latest update.
B. Are the WHO coercing countries to sign?
At least 161 Civil Society Organisations think so.
They have sent an open letter of Tedros Ghebreysesus, the Director General of the WHO and copies to, among others, WHO member nations.
Within their letter they say:
The INB Bureau and the WHO Secretariat are pushing hard for acceptance of the draft Pandemic Agreement as proposed by the Bureau and the Secretariat with minimal changes…
During a briefing on April 19th, the Bureau made it clear that no new textual insertions or deletions would be permitted to the Bureau’s text. Instead, to change the proposed text, Members would have to express their concern with the Bureau’s text and then the WHO Secretariat or Bureau will propose how the concern could be addressed through minor changes in the text…
The approach taken by the Bureau and WHO Secretariat can be seen as coercive, effectively pressuring Member States into accepting a deeply unbalanced legal instrument…
What do you think of that? Is the WHO behaving badly? Like a dictator?
C. INB Press Briefing
Here, on YouTube and Rumble, is a press briefing from the INB on how things are going. Nothing has been agreed yet, but nothing has been taken out. (Except for Article 18, which has now been agreed upon.) A co-chair of the INB says, 'The window of opportunity is closing...we cannot afford to miss this opportunity...'
I feel the World would be a far safer place if they did miss this opportunity; if they failed to reach an agreement; if this treaty never saw the light of day. As discussed in my previous three articles on the proposed treaty, it is NOT needed, its foundation is based on false claims; and it is likely to result in more outbreaks and pandemics due to perverse incentives and increased gain-of-function research; and labs mucking around with the Sars Coronavirus and the Bird Flu Virus have resulted in a much more dangerous world. Lab leaks intentional and unintentional happen.
D. The Treaty is Vague
The WHO Agreement is vague. It is so vague, WHO and other authorities will be able to interpret the agreement in whatever way they want to.
In this 30 second compilation clip from The Hot Zone, listen to John Leake, a true crime writer, talk about this.
Dr Peter McCullough agrees these documents are so vague. He says the WHO will probably operationalize whatever they want to.
E. There is Insufficient Time for Review
Dr Peter McCullough also makes an extremely important comment. These documents have been rolled out late; therefore, there is NOT enough time for REVIEW, i.e. before the upcoming World Health Assembly where nations are expected to vote on them. See this previous article.
Here’s the link to the full Hot Zone video. The section on the proposed WHO Agreement starts at around the 20 minute mark.
F. The Treaty is Unfinished
However, not only has a vague agreement been rolled out too late for proper review, but it is also UNFINISHED.
The WHO expects countries to accept and sign an UNFINISHED document.
James Roguski does not mince his words when he sums up his view of the latest draft of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
He illustrates just how incomplete this document is.
He calls the new draft 'an absolute complete and utter failure'.
You can read his post and listen to his 5 minute video here: Stop. I call Bullshit.
The Expose expanded on James Roguski's post in their article: Latest Pandemic Treaty draft has gaping holes because they daren’t reveal what they plan to do.
G. Some Vague / Unfinished Articles
a. Vague/Unfinished: Article 5. One Health
The WHO Treaty dramatically expands the WHO's areas of interest. By what it terms as a 'One Health Approach', it now intends to be the authority not only on human health but also on animals, plants, ecosystems and the environment. WOW! Surely, no sensible, thinking, caring, ethical person would hand over such a broad range of decision-making to a bureaucracy with obvious conflicts of interest.
As the Expose pointed out in their article, Parties who sign this document agree to accept the One Health Approach without their knowing the details. These will be defined at a later stage and finalized up to two years after they sign it.
From Article 5(4)
The modalities, terms and conditions and operational dimensions of a One Health approach shall be further defined in an instrument that takes into consideration the provisions of the International Health Regulations (2005) and will be operational by 31 May 2026.
b. Vague/Unfinished: Article 6. Preparedness, readiness and health system resilience
From Article 6 (4)
... an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system shall be developed, implemented and regularly assessed, by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations, building on relevant tools, on a timeline to be agreed by the Conference of the Parties. (Bold mine)
Parties that sign the agreement will not know any details about the monitoring and evaluation system and what it’ll be capable of doing. The timeline is also unknown.
c. Vague/Unfinished: Article 12. Access and benefit-sharing
This article deals with the establishment of a 'Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System' (PABS) system” to ensure rapid, systematic and timely sharing of PABS Material and Information.
This has been a very contentious article. This is not because of its potential to play a hand in creating the next outbreak or pandemic, but because nations want a piece of the pie, i.e. the benefits. See here.
As with Article 5, the Parties who sign the agreement won't know the specific details of what will be imposed on them.
From Article 12 (6)
The modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions of the PABS System shall be further defined in a legally-binding instrument, that is operational no later than 31 May 2026. (Bold mine)
The WHO will oversee the PABS System. This has the potential to create huge conflicts of interest as the WHO will become directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts with organisations that help to fund them.
Significant conflicts of interests will surely affect any decision making.
The WHO will feel the need to keep on very positive terms with these organisations—they don’t want to lose their funding. Organisations who want the contracts may even sweeten the pot.
d. Vague/Unfinished: Article 20. Sustainable financing and Article 21. Conference of the Parties
Nations who sign up to the agreement will NOT know details about finance.
The Conference of the Parties want to adopt financial rules for themselves up to 12 months after the WHO pandemic comes into force.
Nations will have NO idea how much all this is going to cost!
Article 20. Sustainable financing
4. The [Coordinating Financial] Mechanism shall function under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties and be accountable to it. The Conference of the Parties shall adopt terms of reference for the Mechanism and modalities for its operationalization and governance, within 12 months after the entry into force of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
Article 21. Conference of the Parties
6. The Conference of the Parties shall by consensus adopt financial rules for itself as well as governing the funding of any subsidiary bodies it may establish as well as financial provisions governing the functioning of the Secretariat.
H. The Treaty Creates a Brand New Bureaucracy
Obviously, from the above articles alone, a significant amount of decision-making will be made by the Conference of Parties sometime in the future.
However, James Roguski points out if nations sign the proposed treaty, the WHO will have got what they wanted.
This is exactly what was expected.
They have always wanted to reach an empty agreement in order to set up a Framework Convention and a brand new bureaucracy (the Conference of the Parties) that would be empowered to meet on a yearly basis off into the future, forever.
What a waste of money and time! The Climate Framework Convention hasn’t worked out very well. It has become a force for censorship and poverty. Nations need to concentrate on clean air, clean water, sanitation, natural foods and embrace carbon dioxide as it feeds the wonderful, life-giving trees. As an aside, watch: Climate the Movie.
Conclusion
Much of the text in the agreement is essentially pointless as it propagates vague intentions that have no substance.
The treaty is also unfinished.
The agreement will result in huge financial commitments that MAY NEVER result in any health benefits.
There is NO justifiable or urgent reason for nations to sign a half-baked document.
The treaty will result in MORE outbreaks and pandemics NOT less.
The first step in creating a safer world for all is TO SHUT DOWN the most likely source of future pandemics—the labs. Therefore, we must NOT accept the WHO treaty—a vehicle for creating more such labs all over the world.
More information
Follow the Money. A 15 minute, to-the-point interview with James Roguski about the recent draft of the WHO Treaty.
Summary: A short three minute video of the proposed WHO Instruments by the Brownstone Institute.
Six minutes with Sky News Australia: Matt Canavan warns against the ‘draconian rules in the WHO Pandemic Treaty’.