Protest The W.H.O. Draft Pandemic Treaty!
Dear WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB),
Please open the process to restore trust in the WHO which is lacking due to the monopolistic tendencies of the WHO to design health policy without the input of relevant stakeholders with a wide body of knowledge to share. This exclusion of meaningful participation violates jus cogens norms and is unacceptable in the setting of monopolized centralized global public health under the direction and control of the WHO INB.
1. The draft treaty has no validity because, as written, it allows for accelerated regulatory authorizations of experimental medical interventions during emergencies, despite the fact that the unequivocal rules of science and ethics require time for scientific and legal review. In Article 7 (pages 15-16) the "WHO CA+" supports speeding up the process by which emergency drugs and vaccines are to be approved. The Siracusa Principles requires the science to be proved in order to justify the necessity and strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, and the draft treaty fails to take this serious situation into account, allowing for the most burdensome measures to be rushed and unnecessarily imposed on nations prior to ensuring safety trials are complete, at the edicts of the WHO health monopoly global security apparatus.
3. I am especially offended by and opposed to the part about legalizing persecution and censorship because it violates jus cogens norms: "tackling misleading misinformation or disinformation would also "strengthen research into the behavioural barriers and drivers of adherence to public health measures, confidence and uptake of vaccines, use of therapeutics and trust in science and government institutions."
4. There are a series of issues with the draft treaty, including definitions and legal obstacles to its adoption at this time. UNDEFINED WORDS: The "WHO CA+" repeatedly used the following words in an inherently arbitrary and capricious manner, even though none of them are legally defined. Article 1 (page 11)
Pandemic - 112 times
Recovery - 52 times
Response - 106 times
Public Health - 44 times
Preparedness - 74 times
Equity - 32 times
Prevention - 68 times
Pandemic Response Products - 27 times
IGNORING THE OBVIOUS: The "WHO CA+" never once mentions any of the following terms: Doctor, early treatment, natural, vitamins, herbs, gain-of-function, complimentary or traditional medicines, essential medicines. Why not? Shouldn't they have a role in public health instruments?
5. I protest the concept in Article 12, where the "WHO CA+" advocates for a "global peer review mechanism" to assess each nation's preparedness, and in Article 20 (page 27) it also advocates that at its first meeting, the "Governing Body" of the "WHO CA+" will approve procedures and mechanisms to promote compliance. I believe this would create mandatory unnecessary meddling into the sovereign affairs of the member states. IHR protects nations right to create their own sovereign legislation for health policy, which includes preparedness assessments that varies country to country. It also creates a burden on member states and serves no legitimate purpose, contrary to public interest.
6. I protest Article 18 (pages 25-26) which makes it clear that if the "WHO CA+" is enacted, then an enormous amount of money is going to be transferred to businesses that provide "pandemic response products.' Based on the exorbitant waste this declared pandemic and inequitable lack of funding of therapeutics which would have ended the alleged pandemic, this article sounds like a blank check for WHO approved products which may be wholly unnecessary or worse, exacerbate the problem, because WHO has a history of bad decisions, mainly because they are at the whim of funders who seek to benefit by the policies (and pandemic preparedness and response contracts) of WHO.
7. I protest the lack of willingness of the WHO to include mandatory mechanisms for coordination with non state actors, Civil Society Organizations (CSO's), primary vulnerable relevant stakeholders and the public. Page 22 -"Enhance WHO's central role as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, mindful of the need for coordination with entities in the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organizations;"
8. I protest Article 17 (page 25) which describes, as part of "a national One Health Action Plan" which, in the human and animal sectors: "optimizes consumption, increases investment in, and promotes equitable and affordable access to new medicines, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other interventions. The problem is the language is arbitrary and could lead to overfunding of vaccines and underfunding of therapeutics, when there should be a mandatory review board of outsiders to ensure the WHO stakeholders adequately fund therapeutics right off the bat, rather than allow funders to threaten the world "no one is safe until a needle in every arm", and WHO gets caught up in the whims of funder stakeholders who benefit from vaccines that cannot be legally allowed if therapeutics exist. Basically, the fact is, many people believe it looks like WHO is a vaccine peddler mafia who intentionally inequitably failed to fund therapeutics in order to inequitably push the non vaccine gene experimental injections and that should probably be addressed to restore public faith in WHO. The draft is dangerous as written because it fails to take this internal structural defect of WHO being at the whim of vaccine monopoly funders into account. It is not in dispute Tedros confessed WHO is at the whim of funders.
9. I protest Article 19 (pages 26-27) which would institute a new bureaucracy for the "WHO CA+" that would essentially duplicate the World Health Assembly with a "Governing Body" ruled over by two Presidents and four Vice-Presidents and a Conference of the Parties. This body is presumably bloated and expensive whilst essentially redundant and unnecessary.
10. I protest Page 13 - "Central role of WHO - As the directing and coordinating authority in global health, and the leader of multilateral cooperation in global health governance, WHO is fundamental to strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems.' This is false wishful thinking, in reality WHO is absolutely not fundamental to strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems. So far, during the unnecessarily declared pandemic the WHO's oversight has been wholly unscientific, reckless, disastrous, resulting in loss of life and health. I protest centralized health under WHO and their unscientific blanket measures which are disproportionate on its face. This is a rebuttable presumption, therefore, I am refuting the WHO's presumption that the WHO is fundamental to strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems!
11. This is a legal notice and demand that participation of ALL relevant stakeholders is required by WHO INB to gain public acceptance of this potential pandemic treaty. Because the INB promised open participation of all relevant stakeholders but failed to actually include primary vulnerable stakeholders (who repeatedly asked to be included) the treaty design process, I believe the draft and final version of the pandemic treaty is invalid until all of the INB identified relevant stakeholders that spoke at the first pandemic treaty hearing April 12,13, 2022, and the second hearing by video, such as Interest of Justice and others are included in a meaningful way.