by ELIZABETH HANKINS
Scholars, health practitioners and health freedom advocates around the world say that efforts to universalise public health through the draft Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations are rife with the kind of opportunities that unchecked power affords.
“It was not just the SARS-cov-2 virus. That was just the jumping off point?–?and jump we did, a world in perfect synchronicity. The frantic response knew no bounds: there was the shifting target of the virus, and the new genetic therapeutics hailed as traditional vaccines. And what of the failure to approve cheap and effective off-patent therapeutics? The register continues?–?several lockdowns, denial of early lifesaving treatment, and the fever pitch censoring?–?and censuring?–?of intelligent dissent. We would do well to recognise and address these well-documented shortcomings and exercise extreme caution before a repeat spells disaster for every WHO partner state.” A Pandemic Reflection
During the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland from 27 May to 1 June 2024, Ministers of Health the world over convened to consider amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that were last amended in 2005, as well as to establish a new Pandemic Agreement (Treaty). While this could sound innocuous, if not cooperative, the potential meaning and impact of these two instruments could be staggering for international public health. In effect, these drafts were intended to set up legally binding commitments under which the WHO’s 194 Member States would undertake to follow WHO recommendations regarding the management of health emergencies. Strengthened with centralised power, the WHO’s Director-General (DG) would have enhanced authority to unilaterally declare Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC), and during such emergencies, exercise increasing powers over member nations. This would radically change how pandemics or threats thereof are managed, further shifting public health policy away from sovereign nations to a global, untempered body.
This important role ought not to be vested in a single individual. Instead, it ought to be entrusted to a body free from conflicts of interest and adequately representing a cross-section of regions, cultures and disciplines, to assess the transmissibility, morbidity and mortality caused by a disease, and to determine response mechanisms appropriate for specific settings and diverse cultures in a bid to promote the highest possible holistic health outcomes (physical, social, psychological, economic, etc.) for everyone. What is perhaps most concerning is that much of the global population and its leaders remain largely unaware of these proposed radical changes and potential impact on their national systems and populations.
Reportedly crafted with the intention of learning from failures in the management of the COVID-19 crisis and building upon its successes, had the two instruments been adopted as proposed prior to tabling at the 77th WHA, they would have accomplished the opposite. The WHO’s failures during the pandemic and its now-discredited exaggeration of disease outbreaks and risk (both of which have trended downward in recent years) are well documented. Nevertheless, the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR) and the International Negotiating Body (INB) responsible for the preparation of the Pandemic Agreement both pressed forward with unusual haste to complete negotiations on the two documents to be voted on at the 77th WHA.
In the process, the WHO contravened its own legal requirements for voting by disregarding Article 55(2) of the current IHR that reads: “The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.” In like manner, the Pandemic Agreement was intended to be delivered by 29 March 2024, for a similar intent of providing time for reflection prior to commitment to vote. But it was also under negotiation right up until the opening of the 77th WHA. In the end, the 77th WHA adopted significantly diluted amendments to the International Health Regulations and shelved a vote on the Pandemic Agreement. Dr Meryl Nass has written a helpful “Complete Article-by-Article Analysis of the Adopted IHR and How it Differs from what was Proposed by WHO in February 2023”.
The Elephant for more