Analysts are sounding alarm bells about the latest draft of the WHO pandemic accord, warning its wide scope could reach still farther through amendments after ratification.The Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord was initiated December 2021 at the World Health Assembly of 194 countries with the idea of ensuring better preparedness for future pandemics, including more equity in access to vaccines and health care. The latest draft was released October 30.Canadian researcher James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D., offered their take in a one-hour analysis November 21. In the segment, available online on Children’s Health Defence TV and the Corbett Report, Nass suggested the negotiators had “taken out some of the really, really bad looking stuff and tried to tone down the language.” Corbett partially agreed.“All of those creepy fill-in-the-blank later definitions that we got in some of the earlier draft seems to have been filled in with well, more gobbledygook,” Corbett said.Terms such as “the highest attainable standard of health” and “whole of government and whole of society approaches at country and community levels…for achieving sustainable improvements” struck Corbett as high-sounding phrases in need of clarity.Corbett also wondered what “monstrosities they might come up with” for the stated goal of “early safe, transparent and rapid sharing of samples and genetic sequence data of pathogens with pandemic potential, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising there from.”The document also called for “predictable, sustainable and sufficient financial, human logistic and technical technical resources” to fight pandemics, but warned “that unequal development across countries is a danger to us all.”The draft also warned about an “infodemic,” defined as “too much information, false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.”Corbett said such “intentionally confusing” wording gave the authors “wiggle room” yet raised important questions.“Who gets to decide what is false or misleading information? Well, of course, it is the very health authorities whose trust is undermined by the false information that they're giving out, right?” he said.“That’s the snake eating its own tail.”The document identified a pandemic as “the global spread of a pathogen or variant that infects human populations with limited or no immunity through sustained and high transmissibility from person to person, overwhelming health systems, with severe morbidity and high mortality, and causing social and economic disruptions, all of which requires effective national and global collaborations and coordination for its control.”Corbett noted massive death was being restored to WHO’s definition of a pandemic, but added, “when they say pandemic, they mean something that requires and necessitates global government.”The document also called for an integrated, unifying “One Health approach” to “sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems…closely linked and interdependent”-- language that suggested the treaty could encompass an extremely broad approach to global health.The agreement also mandated countries to have genomics labs to collect and share dangerous pathogens with each other under WHO’s auspices. Ness thought this arrangement could lead to the breakout of pandemics and hinder anyone being called to account for them.“One Health gives them the ability to collect lots of potential pandemic pathogens and have an excuse for when they get leaked from labs or deliberately spread,” she suggested.“You have the right to do all these very big things in society to prevent or reduce the effect of a pandemic, which could involve moving people around, locking them down, closing schools, who knows, forced vaccines, forced drugs, forced foods; we just don't know what they want to do. But One Health provides that without actually saying so in the treaty.”The draft calls for amendments and actions to be made by “consensus” after the agreement was reached, which also concerns Ness.“They're going to develop a new secretariat, a new big bureaucracy at the WHO to manage all this pandemic preparedness stuff. But once they have the Conference of the Parties, they want them to make their decisions, particularly when they're adding annexes or protocols, by consensus,” she explained.“To me, that means the diplomats are being given a pass…their vote will not be recorded. Nobody will know which side of the fence they were on, right? And nations, like the United States can just …[say] you can't really go against consensus.”Ness said some commentators have noted the unusual amount of secrecy surrounding negotiations. She said the agreement requires two-thirds of countries to be ratified. Thereafter, amendments will require only 50% approval.“They're likely to do a consensus procedure on them,” she theorized.“Just throw it all into the amendments, so the amendments do it all. And they can seal the treaty and call it good.”Corbett warned the agreement could evolve into a “grab bag…[a] giant, ongoing blank cheque that they can write themselves anything they want at any time in the future. All they have to do is secure this agreement.”WHO has May 2024 as the target date for a final agreement, Ness explained.“If nations do not reject last year's amendments, the new amendments from 2024 will go into effect in 12 months and nations will have ten months to opt out of those amendments, if they so choose. But the treaty will, if that goes forward, only require that 40 nations ratify it, which can be done very quickly.”Ness asked what citizens can do before “their governments basically sell them down the river” and cede their sovereignty. Corbett replied the best option would be for governments to withdraw from being a WHO member state, though the lack of an enforcement mechanism could empower a leader to walk away.“Fundamentally, this comes down to some major political leader of some important state, the United States, or another country perhaps, putting their foot down and saying, ‘Nope, done, we're out and do whatever you think you're going to do, but you can't come in and enforce it.’”Article 3.1, which had been crossed out in February, and restored in June, continued to affirm “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”Corbett said, “Take it for what it's worth, which is not much.” He pointed out the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has a giant “escape clause” in Article 29, which says, “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”In March, WHO Director-General Tedros said “No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO” and warned against “misinformation on social media and in the mainstream media.” He said, if “anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn’t, we would be more than happy to discuss it and explain it.”But Corbett said the accord’s architects are feeling the heat and treading carefully.“They are aware that just how deeply unpopular and how carefully they have to move on these types of things in order to secure their agreement. Once they have it in place, as I say, it's the blank cheque that can write anything they want it for in perpetuity."“That's why they're very carefully trying to inch up to it and trying to calm people, [saying], ‘Don't worry. You still have your sovereignty, you still have your individual freedom.’”Corbett said the powers that be were trying to coax people into lazy lives of convenience and distraction instead of joining the "struggle.""When people actually start taking action they can find meaning in their life. The reason you are unhappy is because you are not on the path you are meant to be on," he said."I think we are here to to make our mark on this world. And that's why I'm so glad to be around people like yourself and others who are fighting for what is right. And let's continue doing it. Let's continue working and growing together."
Analysts are sounding alarm bells about the latest draft of the WHO pandemic accord, warning its wide scope could reach still farther through amendments after ratification.The Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord was initiated December 2021 at the World Health Assembly of 194 countries with the idea of ensuring better preparedness for future pandemics, including more equity in access to vaccines and health care. The latest draft was released October 30.Canadian researcher James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D., offered their take in a one-hour analysis November 21. In the segment, available online on Children’s Health Defence TV and the Corbett Report, Nass suggested the negotiators had “taken out some of the really, really bad looking stuff and tried to tone down the language.” Corbett partially agreed.“All of those creepy fill-in-the-blank later definitions that we got in some of the earlier draft seems to have been filled in with well, more gobbledygook,” Corbett said.Terms such as “the highest attainable standard of health” and “whole of government and whole of society approaches at country and community levels…for achieving sustainable improvements” struck Corbett as high-sounding phrases in need of clarity.Corbett also wondered what “monstrosities they might come up with” for the stated goal of “early safe, transparent and rapid sharing of samples and genetic sequence data of pathogens with pandemic potential, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising there from.”The document also called for “predictable, sustainable and sufficient financial, human logistic and technical technical resources” to fight pandemics, but warned “that unequal development across countries is a danger to us all.”The draft also warned about an “infodemic,” defined as “too much information, false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.”Corbett said such “intentionally confusing” wording gave the authors “wiggle room” yet raised important questions.“Who gets to decide what is false or misleading information? Well, of course, it is the very health authorities whose trust is undermined by the false information that they're giving out, right?” he said.“That’s the snake eating its own tail.”The document identified a pandemic as “the global spread of a pathogen or variant that infects human populations with limited or no immunity through sustained and high transmissibility from person to person, overwhelming health systems, with severe morbidity and high mortality, and causing social and economic disruptions, all of which requires effective national and global collaborations and coordination for its control.”Corbett noted massive death was being restored to WHO’s definition of a pandemic, but added, “when they say pandemic, they mean something that requires and necessitates global government.”The document also called for an integrated, unifying “One Health approach” to “sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems…closely linked and interdependent”-- language that suggested the treaty could encompass an extremely broad approach to global health.The agreement also mandated countries to have genomics labs to collect and share dangerous pathogens with each other under WHO’s auspices. Ness thought this arrangement could lead to the breakout of pandemics and hinder anyone being called to account for them.“One Health gives them the ability to collect lots of potential pandemic pathogens and have an excuse for when they get leaked from labs or deliberately spread,” she suggested.“You have the right to do all these very big things in society to prevent or reduce the effect of a pandemic, which could involve moving people around, locking them down, closing schools, who knows, forced vaccines, forced drugs, forced foods; we just don't know what they want to do. But One Health provides that without actually saying so in the treaty.”The draft calls for amendments and actions to be made by “consensus” after the agreement was reached, which also concerns Ness.“They're going to develop a new secretariat, a new big bureaucracy at the WHO to manage all this pandemic preparedness stuff. But once they have the Conference of the Parties, they want them to make their decisions, particularly when they're adding annexes or protocols, by consensus,” she explained.“To me, that means the diplomats are being given a pass…their vote will not be recorded. Nobody will know which side of the fence they were on, right? And nations, like the United States can just …[say] you can't really go against consensus.”Ness said some commentators have noted the unusual amount of secrecy surrounding negotiations. She said the agreement requires two-thirds of countries to be ratified. Thereafter, amendments will require only 50% approval.“They're likely to do a consensus procedure on them,” she theorized.“Just throw it all into the amendments, so the amendments do it all. And they can seal the treaty and call it good.”Corbett warned the agreement could evolve into a “grab bag…[a] giant, ongoing blank cheque that they can write themselves anything they want at any time in the future. All they have to do is secure this agreement.”WHO has May 2024 as the target date for a final agreement, Ness explained.“If nations do not reject last year's amendments, the new amendments from 2024 will go into effect in 12 months and nations will have ten months to opt out of those amendments, if they so choose. But the treaty will, if that goes forward, only require that 40 nations ratify it, which can be done very quickly.”Ness asked what citizens can do before “their governments basically sell them down the river” and cede their sovereignty. Corbett replied the best option would be for governments to withdraw from being a WHO member state, though the lack of an enforcement mechanism could empower a leader to walk away.“Fundamentally, this comes down to some major political leader of some important state, the United States, or another country perhaps, putting their foot down and saying, ‘Nope, done, we're out and do whatever you think you're going to do, but you can't come in and enforce it.’”Article 3.1, which had been crossed out in February, and restored in June, continued to affirm “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”Corbett said, “Take it for what it's worth, which is not much.” He pointed out the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has a giant “escape clause” in Article 29, which says, “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”In March, WHO Director-General Tedros said “No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO” and warned against “misinformation on social media and in the mainstream media.” He said, if “anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn’t, we would be more than happy to discuss it and explain it.”But Corbett said the accord’s architects are feeling the heat and treading carefully.“They are aware that just how deeply unpopular and how carefully they have to move on these types of things in order to secure their agreement. Once they have it in place, as I say, it's the blank cheque that can write anything they want it for in perpetuity."“That's why they're very carefully trying to inch up to it and trying to calm people, [saying], ‘Don't worry. You still have your sovereignty, you still have your individual freedom.’”Corbett said the powers that be were trying to coax people into lazy lives of convenience and distraction instead of joining the "struggle.""When people actually start taking action they can find meaning in their life. The reason you are unhappy is because you are not on the path you are meant to be on," he said."I think we are here to to make our mark on this world. And that's why I'm so glad to be around people like yourself and others who are fighting for what is right. And let's continue doing it. Let's continue working and growing together."
