From ... in Health — May 14, 2025

Pandemic Treaty is WHO’s attempt to control all aspects of any pandemic it declares

Last Week, Brownstone Institute published a commentary on the draft Pandemic Agreement that will be put before next week’s 78th World Health Assembly for adoption. Although most of the Pandemic Agreement is non-binding and steeped in langua

Last Week, Brownstone Institute published a commentary on the draft Pandemic Agreement that will be put before next week’s 78^th World Health Assembly for adoption.

Although most of the Pandemic Agreement is non-binding and steeped in language such as “may,” “where appropriate,” and “when mutually agreed,” there is one theme that comes through: the World Health Organisation is positioning itself to control all aspects of any pandemic it declares.

From research and development to declaring a pandemic and determining the response, to vaccines and global supply chains, the World Health Organisation is seeking to be in sole control of it all.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Please note: The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years. It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

The following is a summary of the essay ‘Commentary on the WHO’s Draft Pandemic Agreement: Pointless Verbiage’ by Thi Thuy Van Dinh and David Bell as published by Brownstone Institute on 8 May 2025. The commentary focuses on selected draft provisions that seem to be unclear, questionable, or potentially problematic.

Table of Contents

Background

In addition to amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (“IHR”) adopted last year, the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) has been developing a draft Pandemic Agreement (“PA”) for three years. The two instruments complement each other. As Thi Thuy Van Dinh and David Bell noted:

The [PA] text should be considered in the context of the 2024 amendments to the IHR that are scheduled to enter into force for States Parties who do not reject them by 19 July 2025. These amendments already set up provisions and mechanisms for the highly profitable pandemic industry, by obligating States to strengthen their surveillance and reporting capacity for potential pathogens, providing [WHO’s Director-General] with sole power to declare an emergency based purely on perception of risk, and then open a process leading to recommendations for lockdown-related measures and rapid mass vaccination.
Commentary on the WHO’s Draft Pandemic Agreement: Pointless Verbiage, Brownstone Institute, 8 May 2025

The PA and IHR amendments aim to centralise the management of pandemics and pandemic preparedness in the WHO. To promote its pandemic preparedness agenda, WHO and the global health industry have engaged in a campaign of misrepresentation and confusion. “Countries and the media have been provided with a series of reports shown to greatly exaggerate the available evidence and citations on the risk of pandemics occurring, exaggerate expected mortality (mostly based on Medieval data), and exaggerate the expected return on investment,” Brownstone Institute said.

In 2024, the IHR amendments were rushed to a vote at the 77^th World Health Assembly (“WHA”), less than 48 hours after negotiations finished, which was a violation of the WHO’s own procedural requirements, and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body was mandated to finish its work on the PA as soon as possible.

It’s important to note that the PA and IHR amendments are not the only global pandemic-related instruments in place:

… pandemic instruments [other than the PA] are already in place – the IHR amendments, the WHO’s Bio-Hub (International Pathogen Surveillance Network) and Medical Countermeasures Platform, the World Bank’s Pandemic Fund, and the 100 Days to Vaccine initiative. The PA is some additional icing on the pandemic cake, and perhaps a support for bruised egos and an attempt to prove that countries don’t agree with the United States’ withdrawal.
Commentary on the WHO’s Draft Pandemic Agreement: Pointless Verbiage, Brownstone Institute, 8 May 2025

Consensus, Contradictions and Equity Concerns

The draft PA was agreed on 16 April 2025, and is ready for consideration by the 78^th WHA, despite the United States, the WHO’s largest contributor, having walked away from the negotiation process.

To reach a consensus, the draft PA was watered down; there was a softening of state obligations, and key areas of implementation were left to be determined by future Conference of the Parties (“COP”) and annexes.

The language of the agreement contradicts previous WHO understanding and public health norms. It promotes “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-society” approaches rather than proportionate measures that minimise societal disruption and long-term harm, and ignores the basic policy requirement of considering resource allocations against other competing priorities.

The agreement prioritises commodity equity over health equity, which is detrimental to health outcomes, and contributes to the building of a pandemic industry that is heavily funded with an apparent low requirement for evidence, leading to wealth concentration and inequality.

The architecture and functioning of the PA’s new governing body, the COP, may imitate the setting of other controversial international treaties, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”), “arguably the most dishonest, hypocritical framework ever established.”

Criticism of the Agreement’s Proportionality, Focus and Approach

WHO’s draft PA has a lack of proportionality in addressing global health challenges; it fails to consider the context of health and societal issues beyond its extremely narrow terms based on selected populations when developing public health policy.

The PA expresses concern over inequities in access to health products, but this concern is narrow and does not account for the broader health needs and priorities of different populations, such as the predominantly young population in Africa. Instead of centralising health globally as WHO is attempting to do, a truly decentralised approach is needed to achieve health equity.

The PA promotes “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-society” approaches to pandemic response. It is normalising the disruptive and damaging approach to public health seen in response to covid, which had negative consequences, particularly in lower-income countries. And the inclusion of traditional medicine and knowledge appears hollow given the emphasis on WHO-approved vaccination and limited allopathic medicines.

The draft PA recognises the importance of building trust and sharing information to prevent misinformation and stigmatisation, but the WHO’s own track record on these issues is questionable, given its use of exaggerated claims, fear-mongering and stigmatisation during the covid response.

WHO’s Mandate Expanding to Include Climate Change

WHO is attempting to expand its mandate to include the link between health, environment and climate change, as reflected in the draft PA, which recognises “the importance and public health impact of growing threats such as climate change.”

Incorporating climate change as a health issue is per a resolution passed at the 76^th WHA in 2023. It stated that the assembly recognised “the link between health, environment and climate change.” This was reiterated in a resolution at the 77^th WHA in 2024. In addition to the “link” to climate change, the 2024 resolution stated, “climate change is one of the major threats to global public health” and noted “the urgent call issued by the Director-General for global climate action.”

Risk Factors, Research and Development and Production of Pandemic Products

WHO’s draft PA recognises various environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors that may increase the risk of pandemics, and encourages parties to consider these factors in developing and implementing relevant policies and measures.

However, it largely ignores individual resilience, despite its importance in covid outcomes and immunological responses, and instead focuses on a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

Article 9 of the agreement discusses research and development for pandemic-related products – including vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics – and suggests that states may be obligated to build in development and funding grants with compulsory clauses for low pricing, licensing and sub-licensing products to less-developed countries.

The agreement also proposes cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing during and between pandemics. This will be impractical and expensive to implement, particularly in terms of maintaining the quality of production in developing countries.

Aside from the impracticalities, as per Article 10, WHO is overstepping its expertise by providing assistance to facilities for the development and production of pandemic-related products, including training, capacity-building and technology transfer. In addition to being incapable of these tasks, providing this “assistance” will lead to conflicts of interest and intellectual property concerns.

In addition, Article 10 subparagraph 3(e) of the PA suggests that countries will be “encouraged” to establish long-term contracts for pandemic-related health products, which will not only benefit international organisations and developers but also create conflicts of interest and self-serving arrangements. “There is no specific process to manage such inevitable self-serving,” Brownstone Institute said.

WHO’s draft PA includes provisions for the transfer of technology and cooperation on related know-how for the production of pandemic-related products.

Article 12 of the agreement establishes the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (“PABS System”), which aims to ensure the rapid and timely sharing of materials and sequence information on pathogens with pandemic potential, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the sharing and/or utilisation of PABS Materials and Sequence Information for public health purposes.

The PABS System will be governed by the “PABS Instrument,” which is currently being prepared and negotiated by the INB secretariat, and will define key terms and conditions.

The PABS System raises concerns due to its potential to expand the laboratory storage, transport and handling of pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2, under the “administration and coordination” of WHO, which has no significant direct experience in handling biological materials, is outside of national jurisdiction and is subject to commercial and geopolitical interference.

The PABS Instrument will include provisions for participating manufacturers to donate a minimum of 10% of real-time production of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to WHO and another 10% to be reserved at special prices for WHO.

WHO will have significant control over the PABS System, including determining whether a triggering emergency exists, managing the system, signing contracts with manufacturers and managing benefits from commodities – which creates a clear conflict of interest and lacks direct jurisdictional oversight.

Adding to the conflicts of interest and lack of oversight, the draft PA proposes the establishment of a “Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network,” which would be managed by, you guessed it, WHO:

The same entity, the WHO, that determines whether the triggering emergency exists, determines the response, manages the PABS system, and signs contracts with potential manufacturers who want to get access to the PABS, will also manage benefit from the commodities (including the global supply chain, see Art. 13), without direct jurisdictional oversight. This is such an obvious conflict of interest that no rational jurisdiction would allow it. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment.
Commentary on the WHO’s Draft Pandemic Agreement: Pointless Verbiage, Brownstone Institute, 8 May 2025

Communication and Public Awareness

Article 18 of the agreement focuses on communication and public awareness, promoting the strengthening of science, public health and the public’s pandemic literacy, as well as access to transparent and accurate information.

WHO itself has a poor track record of transparent and accurate information; the organisation has been systematically misrepresenting both the risk of pandemics and the expected return on investment from addressing them. For example, WHO’s covid slogan “No one is safe until everyone is safe” misrepresented both the heterogeneity of risk and the effectiveness of covid “vaccines” against transmission.

Coordinating Financing Mechanism, Governance and WHO Secretariat’s Role

Article 20 of WHO’s draft PA establishes a Coordinating Financing Mechanism (“CFM”) to promote the implementation of the agreement. The current text anticipates the CFM to be established under the IHR (2005) but then passes the details to the COP to determine.

Either the CFM will be used in parallel to the World Bank’s Pandemic Fund, or the COP will establish it under the existing Pandemic Fund. The CFM will not only manage finance but also carry out other activities such as conducting relevant needs and gaps analyses. “Surely, the pandemic industry will grow further,” Brownstone Institute said.

Article 21 of the draft PA establishes the COP. The first COP will take place in the first year following the PA’s entry into force. “As an essentially subsidiary body of the WHO (the WHO will initially provide secretariat support), the COP will then establish its own ‘subsidiary bodies’, again further expanding and cementing in place another set of international health bureaucracy,” Brownstone Institute said.

Article 24 of the agreement explicitly states that nothing in WHO’s PA shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat with the authority to mandate or impose requirements on countries. This gives WHO soft power but not the power to enforce measures directly; border closures and other lockdown measures will remain recommendations. “However, these recommendations, even for theoretical threats, will make it difficult for less powerful countries to not comply,” Brownstone Institute said.

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…

Can you please help power The Expose’s hosest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?

Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.

So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…

We’re not funded by the Governmenrt
to publish lies and propagandas on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.

Instead we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in ourt efforts to bring
you honest, relisble, investagative journslism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…

Please just choose your preferred
method to show your support…

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Pandemic Treaty is WHO’s attempt to control all aspects of any pandemic it declares

Background

Consensus, Contradictions and Equity Concerns

Criticism of the Agreement’s Proportionality, Focus and Approach

WHO’s Mandate Expanding to Include Climate Change

Risk Factors, Research and Development and Production of Pandemic Products

Communication and Public Awareness

Coordinating Financing Mechanism, Governance and WHO Secretariat’s Role

Search Results

Bookmarks

Background

Consensus, Contradictions and Equity Concerns

Criticism of the Agreement’s Proportionality, Focus and Approach

WHO’s Mandate Expanding to Include Climate Change

Risk Factors, Research and Development and Production of Pandemic Products

Technology Transfer and the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System

Communication and Public Awareness

Coordinating Financing Mechanism, Governance and WHO Secretariat’s Role

Subscribe to The Article Feed