WHO Pandemic Treaty Update

A Welcome Reprieve

In early November, we posted on the WHO Pandemic Agreement as the global steps to totalitarian control inched closer. With much activity ongoing in this area over the past several weeks, we wanted to provide a brief update on how the WHO Pandemic Treaty negotiations are progressing and highlight the varying perspectives that have been posted recently. In early December, screenshots from a post by Dr Meryl Nass showed that the fear many have expressed that the WHO Pandemic Treaty will be approved was possibly misplaced; there is still much to debate and no official draft agreement is available to view.

She also posted last month that “we are hopefully at the beginning of the end of the Pandemic Preparedness Agenda”. To summarise, no agreements were made in November that meant that the negotiations will continue until May 2025. The HART article last month, related to an early draft of the Pact for the Future, which was adopted by consensus.

In the last meeting of the International Negotiating Body (INB) of the WHO, Dr Nass has commented on her website and in social media posts that the INB works on the basis that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Therefore, for now at least, it seems there is still much that has yet to be agreed upon. Screenshots Dr Nass posted from the last INB meeting show areas where topics are not settled, including that nations do not agree to being forced to “implement routine immunization” and other measures claimed to be consistent with the International Health Regulations (IHR). Similarly, there is no agreement on the so-called “One Health” project relating to Pandemic Preparedness. There is continuing dispute over the transfer of technology and know-how for the production of pandemic-related health products. There is also no agreement to create a separate Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) instrument outside the Pandemic Treaty. However, in screenshots of Article 12, there are concerns that in future planned negotiations, the WHO would make legally binding contracts with manufacturers of pandemic-related products, including distribution. To date, no agreement has been made regarding vaccine liability waivers, with the possibility of no-fault compensation mechanisms for liability relating to pandemic vaccines during emergencies but the terms have yet to be agreed upon.

It would still take 3 years to get out of the Pandemic Treaty, and it would enter into force 30 days after the 60th signature. In a 7th December post, Dr Nass states that the Pandemic Treaty negotiators concluded their week-long meeting in Geneva, without an agreement, highlighting another setback for the WHO plan, and that essentially the ‘treaty is dead’. The aim was for the INB to resume a session in early December to get the Treaty adopted before Donald Trump took office. However, this has not worked and in the case of the USA - at least - the Pandemic Treaty is a failure and the US will not become a party. Such encouraging news is also borne out by the fact that so far, 26 States in the USA have not signed up to the WHO Pandemic Treaty. The State Governors posted this Joint Statement: “The WHO is attempting one world control over health policy with their new ‘Pandemic Agreement’. Twenty-four Republican Governors expressed concern over this development in a joint letter in May 2024. “Put simply, Republican Governors will not comply”. In early May 2024, 49 Senators also sent a letter to President Biden to withdraw support for the current Pandemic Treaty negotiations and the IHR amendment negotiations.

James Ruguski has posted more recently that no agreements have been reached, but cautions this is not yet ‘dead in the water’ and negotiations will continue into 2025. Other excerpts also indicate that there will be no Pandemic Agreement by the end of 2024, with some doubting whether an agreement will even be reached by the May 2025 deadline. There are many points of contention but ultimately, developing countries are concerned that the Pandemic Agreement is being used by the EU to impose surveillance and other obligations under the guise of pandemic prevention, rather than delivering outcomes to address inequities experienced during health emergencies. In her newsletter, Dr Nass said: “If a pandemic treaty does eventuate, it will be Trump’s call whether to join, or not. And he already staked out his position last year: no WHO, no pandemic treaty. no global governance.” We will continue to monitor the pandemic negotiations, but it seems we have a much-welcomed reprieve. Let’s hope when Trump resumes office this pandemic treaty is permanently closed.