by Meryl Nass
October 22,
2023
from
MerylNass Website
Italian
version
This version of
the Treaty
is very similar
to the June 2 version,
but I felt an
updated analysis was needed
before the
hearing on the WHO
tomorrow October
23, 2023.
First, it should be noted that the names used for this document
change with each draft, which is very confusing. The current draft
omits the term CA+, and is titled:
Negotiating Text of
the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument
on 'pandemic' prevention, preparedness and response
(WHO
Pandemic Agreement)
Advanced unedited version
16 October 2023
This document is very
similar to the June 2 "Bureau Draft" of the Treaty.
It needs to be understood that this treaty is based on fantasy, as
none of its foundational assumptions is accurate.
The Pandemic Treaty intends to
create a complicated managerial structure with a new WHO Secretariat
and Conference of the Parties to perform activities that have never
been shown to prevent or respond to 'pandemics' effectively or
provide any other benefits.
In fact, these efforts
are most likely to increase 'pandemics' and encourage the use of
hasty regulatory structures and problematic, liability-waived drugs
and vaccines produced too quickly.
All the Pandemic Treaty drafts so far rely on a set of
incorrect assumptions.
They include the
following:
-
The WHO is the directing
and coordinating authority on international health.
-
International
spread of disease demands the widest international
cooperation, ignoring the fact that international spread may
be limited to only a few countries and will demand a
different level of response, depending on the circumstances.
-
Nations retain
national sovereignty through their ability to pass health
laws, while they will simultaneously be bound and
accountable to obey the directives from the WHO on health.
-
We were
unprepared for COVID and this caused the pandemic's
suffering, but now we know how to prepare for 'pandemics'
and simply need a central authority to direct us.
-
Lack of equity
led to failure to share drugs, vaccines, PPE - ignoring the
fact that no nation had sufficient PPE or tests early in the
'pandemic', and that it was nations withholding generic
drugs from their populations, not lack of equity causing
many treatment shortages.
-
Pandemics
invariably arise at the animal-human interface, are natural
in origin, and the vaguely defined "One
Health approach" can prevent or detect them
early.
-
Increasing the
capture and study of "potential 'pandemic' pathogens" can be
done safely and provide useful 'pandemic' products, when
neither has been true in the past.
-
Pharmaceutical manufacturers
will agree to give up some intellectual property rights. In
fact, a Pharma manufacturers' association said this week it
would prefer no treaty to this one. 1
-
The UN adopted a
declaration on 'pandemic' preparedness on September 20,
2023. In fact, 11 countries objected and the declaration was
only approved by the UN Secretary-General.
-
Censorship of "infodemics"
is legal and desirable.
-
Nations and the
WHO must apply the "One Health approach," which includes
efforts related to
climate change and
sustainable development, for health promotion.
-
Health "coverage"
(insurance) will provide the world's citizens access to a
broad range of health care.
Here are some specific
examples of what is wrong with the Treaty...
Article 3, #2. Sovereignty
"States have, in
accordance with the charter of the United Nations and the
general principles of international law, the sovereign right to
legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their
health policies."
This language fails to
address the issue of the WHO assuming sovereignty for health matters
over states through this treaty.
Article
3, #3. Equity
"Equity includes the
unhindered, fair, equitable and timely access to safe,
effective, quality and affordable 'pandemic' - related products
and services, information, 'pandemic' - related technologies and
social protection."
However, Article 9, #2
(d) states that parties shall promote "infodemic management," and
infodemic is defined in Article 1(c) as false or misleading
information.
Article 18, #1 instructs
the Parties to,
"combat false,
misleading, misinformation or disinformation..."
In earlier drafts the WHO
spelled out that only the WHO's public health narrative would be
allowed to spread.
Article
4, #3. Pandemic prevention and public health surveillance
"The Parties shall
cooperate with the support of the WHO Secretariat to strengthen
and maintain public health laboratory and diagnostic capacities,
especially with respect to the capacity to perform genetic
sequencing, data science to assess the risk of detected
pathogens and to safely handle samples containing pathogens and
the use of related digital tools."
While this language is
more spare than in previous drafts, it does direct nations to
perform genetic sequencing of potential 'pandemic' pathogens (i.e.,
biological warfare agents) they find and to safely handle them,
which requires high containment (BSL3/4) laboratories.
Also in Article 4 is the
need to,
"develop, strengthen
and maintain the capacity to (i) detect, identify and
characterize pathogens presenting significant risks...",
...indicating the
directive for nations to perform surveillance to seek out such
pathogens.
Article
6, #4. Preparedness, Readiness and Resilience
"The Parties shall
establish, building on existing arrangements as appropriate,
genomics, risk assessment, and laboratory networks in order to
conduct surveillance and sharing of emerging pathogens with
'pandemic' potential, with such sharing pursuant to the terms
and modalities established in Article 12."
Article 1 (h) defined,
"pathogen with
'pandemic' potential" as any pathogen that has been identified
to infect humans and that is potentially highly transmissible
and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations
and highly virulent, making it likely to cause significant
morbidity and or mortality in humans."
Why does the WHO require
nations to go out and find potential 'pandemic' pathogens (a.k.a.
biological warfare agents) and supply both samples and their
sequences to the WHO, where they will be shared with pharmaceutical
companies, research centers and academic institutions, as well as
possible others and online?
Article
8, #3. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews
"The parties shall,
building on existing tools, develop and implement an inclusive,
transparent, effective and efficient 'pandemic' prevention,
preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system."
Yet 4 different
monitoring systems have been used to gauge nations' readiness for
'pandemics' and all 4 failed to predict how well they would do when
COVID appeared.
There is no
acknowledgement of the failures of our assessment tools, nor
discussion of whether there exist any useful assessment tools.
2,3
And this begs the
question why, if our means of assessing progress against 'pandemics'
failed, do we think that similar efforts are likely to be successful
in future?
Article
10, #1 (d). Sustainable production
"The Parties
encourage entities, including manufacturers within their
respective jurisdictions, in particular those that receive
significant public financing, to grant, subject to any existing
licensing restrictions, on mutually agreed terms, non-exclusive
royalty-free licenses to any manufacturers, particularly from
developing countries, to use their intellectual property and
other protected substances, products, technology, know-how,
information and knowledge used in the process of 'pandemic' -
related product development and production, in particular for
pre- 'pandemic' and 'pandemic' diagnostics, vaccines and
therapeutics for use in agreed developing countries."
This and related sections
are probably what make the pharma organization so upset with the
Treaty...
Article
12, #4 (a) i (2) Access and benefit-sharing
"upload the genetic
sequence of such WHO PABS (Pathogen Access and Benefits System)
material to one or more publicly accessible databases of its
choice, provided that the database has put in place an
appropriate arrangement with respect to WHO PABS material."
There is additional
discussion about the sharing of pathogens and the need to identify
and upload their genetic sequences online where they will be
accessible.
This could also be called
proliferation of biological weapons agents, which is
generally considered a crime.
In the US, "Select
Agents" are those designated to have 'pandemic' potential, and
the select agent program 4 is managed by CDC and
USDA.
For safety, CDC must
give permission to transfer select agents.
Yet the select agent
rules are ignored in this WHO Treaty.
And in an apparent effort
to handwave over existing rules, the drafts says in Article 12, #8,
"The Parties shall
ensure that such a system is consistent with, supportive of, and
does not run counter to, the objectives of the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol thereto.
The WHO PABS system
will provide certainty and legal clarity to the providers and
users of WHO PABS materials."
Article
13, #3 (e). Global Supply Chain and Logistics
"The terms of the WHO
SCL Network shall include: facilitating the negotiation and
agreement of advance purchase commitments and procurement
contracts for 'pandemic'-related products."
Advance purchase
commitments are contracts that obligate nations to buy products for
'pandemics' in advance, sight unseen.
Neither the manufacturer
nor the nation knows what is coming, but once WHO issues a
'pandemic' declaration, the contracts are activated and the US
government will have to buy what the manufacturer produces.
The
2009 swine flu 'pandemic' provides
a useful example.
Advance purchase
commitments led to tens of $ billions in vaccine purchases in North
America and Europe for a flu that was less severe than normal.
The GSK Pandemrix
brand of vaccine led to over 1300 cases of severe narcolepsy,
primarily in adolescents. 5
Rapid production of
vaccines for which profits are guaranteed and liability is waived
has never been a win for the consumer.
Article
14. Regulatory Strengthening
Nations are to harmonize their regulatory requirements, expedite
approvals and authorizations and ensure the legal framework in place
to support emergency approvals.
This incentivizes a race
to the bottom of drug and vaccine approval standards, particularly
during emergencies.
References
-
https://www.ifpma.org/news/innovative-pharmaceutical-industry-statement-on-draft-who-'pandemic'-treaty-we-need-to-preserve-what-went-well-and-address-what-went-wrong/
"As the body
representing the global innovative pharmaceutical industry
in official relations with the United Nations, IFPMA has
issued the following statement in response. IFPMA Director
General, Thomas Cueni said on October 17, 2023:
"It would be better to have no 'pandemic' treaty than a bad
'pandemic' treaty, which the draft circulated to member
states clearly represents."'
-
WHO Report:
Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO
Health Emergencies Program.
Interim report on WHO’s response to COVID-19 January-April
2020.
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/interim-report-on-who-s-response-to-covid
- -january - -april-2020
"The IOAC sees no clear relation between JEE scores and
country preparedness and response to COVID-19, suggesting
that existing metrics for public health preparedness and
health care capacity do not reflect the full range of
variables that affect a country’s response during a severe
'pandemic' on a massive scale.
The majority of
countries appeared ill-prepared and struggled to implement
public health measures in response to COVID-19.
In the light of
this 'pandemic', the IOAC recommends that Member States and
the WHO Secretariat 6 review the IHR core capacities and
existing tools and framework for national and international
preparedness, and consider whether they need to be updated."
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9111134/
-
https://www.selectagents.gov/
-
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-'pandemic'-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy
|