Straight to the point

Many readers may have heard a lot of concern being raised about “the new pandemic treaty” being proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

A lot of hot air is in fact circulating, and this article is designed to guide you to some reliable sources of further information.

In order to understand the context of what is being proposed and why, it is necessary to appreciate some history of the WHO. Many still regard this organisation as one which does “good things to help children in Africa” and, indeed, since its inception it has been involved in a number of projects which have helped promote the health of people in poorer countries.

However, the organisation has, unfortunately, recently become subject to significant corporate interests and can no longer be relied upon as a neutral player on the global public health stage.

It is highly recommended to read this history of the WHO, written by Dr David Bell, who has previously worked within the organisation.

You should then read this brief piece by David, which sets the scene as regards the WHO’s proposed “Pandemic treaty”.

The WHO is attempting to increase its powers to declare pandemics and direct governments’ responses to them. The core narrative thrust which underpins these attempts is that pandemics are more likely now than ever before, and we must be constantly on our guard, living in a state of perpetual alertness.  However, as this article explains, the world has many more pressing medical problems, pandemics are in fact likely to be less frequent than in the past, and the diversion of resources away from everyday medical problems, especially in poorer countries, is totally irrational.

This article gives further information about the International Health Regulations; this piece summarizes — without unnecessary and counterproductive hyperbole — the changes being sought to those, as well as outlining the core features of the proposed treaty, and this is the one article it is recommended you read if pushed for time. (However, all of the articles mentioned here are quite accessible and none of them are particularly long).

Finally, David has done an extensive interview covering the above content, which is also highly recommended.

You may well be asking at this point “what can I do to oppose this?”.  Just knowing more about what is being proposed and educating others is a very important step, particularly given that very few citizens know about these instruments, and how they may permit an undemocratic and remote body to have unprecedented control over our day-to-day lives.

In terms of specific action, you can download the template letter from the PANDA website and send it to your government representative.

Alongside the WHO treaty, numerous amendments were proposed for the International Health Regulations.

As this Substack article explains, even with most of the proposed amendments being “off the table” the remaining amendment is still quite dangerous and should be firmly resisted, as it reduces the period of time states have to object to proposed amendments to the Regulations from 18 to 6 months, after which they come into force by default.