Implications of the Pandemic, Part 1 - Revision history

Akshayjha at 13:25, 14 July 2024

2024-07-14T13:25:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 14 July 2024
Line 27:		Line 27:

	# Soliman, A., Taguchi, K., Matsoso, P., Driece, R.A., da Silva Nunes, T. and Tangcharoensathien, V., 2023. WHO pandemic accord: full adherence to the principle of sovereignty. The Lancet, 402(10410), pp.1322-1323.		# Soliman, A., Taguchi, K., Matsoso, P., Driece, R.A., da Silva Nunes, T. and Tangcharoensathien, V., 2023. WHO pandemic accord: full adherence to the principle of sovereignty. The Lancet, 402(10410), pp.1322-1323.
	# Lee Jones, Shahar Hameiri, Explaining the failure of global health governance during COVID-19, International Affairs, Volume 98, Issue 6, November 2022, Pages 2057–2076.		# Lee Jones, Shahar Hameiri, [https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac231 Explaining the failure of global health governance during COVID-19], International Affairs, Volume 98, Issue 6, November 2022, Pages 2057–2076.
	# Zero Draft		# [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf Zero Draft]
	# Innovative pharmaceutical industry statement on draft WHO Pandemic Treaty: We need to preserve what went well and address what went wrong by IFPMA		# [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 Innovative pharmaceutical industry statement on draft WHO Pandemic Treaty: We need to preserve what went well and address what went wrong by IFPMA]
	# Čítajte viac		# [https://spectator.sme.sk/c/23254416/new-who-pandemic-treaty-is-targeted-by-slovak-disinformation-actors.html Čítajte viac]
	# Clare Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Maike Voss, The futility of the pandemic treaty: caught between globalism and statism, International Affairs, Volume 98, Issue 3, May 2022, Pages 837–852		# Clare Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Maike Voss, [https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac023 The futility of the pandemic treaty: caught between globalism and statism], International Affairs, Volume 98, Issue 3, May 2022, Pages 837–852
	# Finkelstein, Lawrence S. “What is global governance.” Global governance 1 (1995): 367. Barnett, M. N., Pevehouse, J. C., & Raustiala, K. (2022). Global governance in a world of change. Cambridge University Press.		# Finkelstein, Lawrence S. “What is global governance.” Global governance 1 (1995): 367. Barnett, M. N., Pevehouse, J. C., & Raustiala, K. (2022). Global governance in a world of change. Cambridge University Press.
	# LAWYERS, DOCTORS and CITIZENS ACROSS INDIA WRITE TO THE PRIME MINISTER & MINISTER, MOHFW: THE DRAFT ‘GLOBAL PANDEMIC ACCORD’ OF THE ‘WHO’ IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND INDIA CANNOT BE A SIGNATORY TO IT The letter addresses the plans of the World Health Organisation (WHO) through its proposed Global Pandemic Accord and IHR Amendments to be in charge of World Health and the dire implications thereof for Countries’ Sovereignty. It highlights worries about the accord’s potential impact on India’s sovereignty and citizens’ rights. The accord suggests granting the WHO unprecedented powers that could infringe upon national autonomy and individual liberties. Concerns revolve around potential coercion in medical procedures, ethical violations, and the erosion of fundamental rights. Urgent attention and scrutiny of this matter are urged to safeguard constitutional values and citizen rights. Summarised by Colin Todhunter, December 17th, 2023		# LAWYERS, DOCTORS and CITIZENS ACROSS INDIA WRITE TO THE PRIME MINISTER & MINISTER, MOHFW: THE DRAFT ‘GLOBAL PANDEMIC ACCORD’ OF THE ‘WHO’ IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND INDIA CANNOT BE A SIGNATORY TO IT The [https://awakenindiamovement.com/who-pandemic-treaty-ultra-vires-of-the-constitution-16-12-23/ letter] addresses the plans of the World Health Organisation (WHO) through its proposed Global Pandemic Accord and IHR Amendments to be in charge of World Health and the dire implications thereof for Countries’ Sovereignty. It highlights worries about the accord’s potential impact on India’s sovereignty and citizens’ rights. The accord suggests granting the WHO unprecedented powers that could infringe upon national autonomy and individual liberties. Concerns revolve around potential coercion in medical procedures, ethical violations, and the erosion of fundamental rights. Urgent attention and scrutiny of this matter are urged to safeguard constitutional values and citizen rights. [https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/12/letter-from-india-stop-world-health-organizations-pandemic-preparedness-tyranny/ Summarised] by Colin Todhunter, December 17th, 2023

	Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu.		Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu.
	Published by Brhat.[[Category:Health and Wellness Sciences]]		Published by Brhat.[[index.php?title=Category:Health and Wellness Sciences]]

Akshayjha at 13:42, 13 July 2024

2024-07-13T13:42:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 13 July 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu.		Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu.
	Published by Brhat.		Published by Brhat.[[Category:Health and Wellness Sciences]]

Akshayjha: Created page with " Draft for negotiation by member states can be found [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb7/A_INB7_3-en.pdf here]. In March 2023, countries of the World Health Organization began negotiations to arrive at a global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, using the [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf “zero draft”] as a basis for negotiating an agreement to protect nations and communities from future pandemic emergencies...."

2024-07-13T13:41:59Z

Created page with " Draft for negotiation by member states can be found [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb7/A_INB7_3-en.pdf here]. In March 2023, countries of the World Health Organization began negotiations to arrive at a global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, using the [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf “zero draft”] as a basis for negotiating an agreement to protect nations and communities from future pandemic emergencies...."

New page

Draft for negotiation by member states can be found [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb7/A_INB7_3-en.pdf here].

In March 2023, countries of the World Health Organization began negotiations to arrive at a global accord on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, using the [https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf “zero draft”] as a basis for negotiating an agreement to protect nations and communities from future pandemic emergencies. The proposal for the negotiating text for the agreement was released on October 30th, 2023, to be debated by the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body. The final vote of the 194 member states is proposed to take place in May 2024. The stated objective of the accord is, “guided by equity, the right to health and the principles and approaches set forth herein, is to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics, with the aim of comprehensively and effectively addressing the systemic gaps and challenges that exist in these areas, at national, regional and international levels”. Equity is stated as a general principle and approach of the treaty, and 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.” Pandemic-related products, according to the text of the agreement, include diagnostics, therapeutics, medical equipment and drugs, but also, crucially, vaccines. This piece shall examine the major issues that have been raised in relation to the treaty, and make a case for its rejection by India come May 2024.

On a superficial level, the treaty articulates a prospective framework aimed at enhancing fairness and efficiency in global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response efforts through collaborative international endeavors. It advocates for the formulation of a mechanism to guarantee the equitable distribution of pandemic-related commodities, including vaccines and diagnostic tests. Additionally, the document underscores a commitment to expeditious and transparent disclosure of clinical research and trial outcomes. It emphasizes the imperative of disseminating information on emerging health risks and acknowledges the World Health Organization (WHO) as the pivotal coordinating entity for international health initiatives. However, we must look beyond these seemingly noble objectives, into what the treaty truly entails and the powers that are to be conferred on the WHO if successfully ratified by member states.

==== Health as a Human Right? ====
Health has been recognized as a second generation human right since the adoption of the Constitution of the World Health Organization, and reinforced by numerous treaties since. Though long been recognized internationally, an exception is the United States, where the right is not enforceable, alongside the right to access health care which is only partially funded by the federal government. Furthermore, there is apprehension about the free exchange of information and global actors that stand to profit exponentially with each pandemic. It is concerning that the most important global policy debate – one over intellectual property rights related to vaccines, their testing, and treatment – took place inside a commerce body, the World Trade Organization (WTO), with little regard for the right to health mounting death rates, rather than at the WHO. This clearly points us to the fact that the concept of the right to health in International law remains that — just a concept — to be put aside at critical moments in favor of commercial interests.

==== Repeated Failures of the WHO ====
It is not contested that though the WHO has had some successes, such as the eradication of smallpox and polio, its failures are a far bigger blot on the history of the organization and draw much criticism. From the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to HIV, the West Nile Virus, the Influenza pandemic, etc. most of the WHO’s efforts have been inadequate in the face of such health crises, whether global or regional. Additionally, both the WHO and the Security Council’s failure to take prompt action of any import during the COVID-19 global health crisis to mitigate the devastating effects of the pandemic have alarmed scholars and observers of international multilateral organizations. The WHO, backed by Chinese donors, failed to acknowledge, let alone hold accountable, the laboratory origins of the COVID virus in Wuhan. Moreover, big tech and media outlets were weaponized for censorship and suppression of free speech and the free exchange of information surrounding the disease, the lockdown measures, and vaccine mandates. The geopolitical tussle between the United States and China took precedence, leading to the collapse of global health governance structures and principles.

As pointed out by Colin Todhunter about the WHO’s actions during COVID-19, in his coverage of the Letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of Health and Family Welfare from a group of prominent lawyers, doctors and concerned citizens: “The seeds of totalitarianism were [https://dissidentvoice.org/2022/10/free-speech-jacinda-ardern-and-the-tyranny-of-kindness/ clear to see] with Anthony Fauci saying that he is ‘the science’, former New Zealand PM Jacinda Arden declaring the government as the ‘single source of truth’ and social media companies working hand in glove with the deep state to censor and deplatform prominent figures and world-renowned scientists who questioned the official narrative. We saw the suspension of fundamental civil liberties with the threat of state violence on hand, often resulting in citizens being abused by de facto paramilitary police forces for breaching ‘pandemic rules’ that had no scientific basis.”

==== Challenge to Sovereignty? ====
Public health policy is the sovereign subject and function of nations, and though the treaty reiterates this fact, it also attempts to impose obligations on the member states and direct the actions of governments during a period of vulnerability, drawing concern. The powers of the WHO, delineated by its Constitution, are restricted to its authority to undertake international health work. WHO necessarily does not hold jurisdiction over national health work, therefore, the organization or its staff cannot enforce decisions such as imposing lockdowns, mandating vaccinations, or dictating the opening or closing of borders, as such decisions remain within the sovereign domain of each nation. However, the recommendations of the WHO and its treaties so formulated, run the risk of superseding the recommendations of the national level health organizations and policy making advisory bodies.

At the Health and Democracy Conference held at the EU Parliament, Strasburg on 13 September, 2023, Philipp Kruse, one of the lawyers involved in the citizens’ initiative, delivered a speech urging the EU to reject the WHO’s treaty. One of the crucial arguments stated by Kruse, through his reading of the agreement, was that the treaty was an attempt at expanding the powers of the WHO permanently over the sovereignty of 195 member states nations and the self-determination of peoples. The proposed contents of the treaty and changes to the IHR (International Health Regulations) can be seen as intrusive. Moreover, he criticized the phrase “One Health” (from Article 5 of the draft, which seeks to incorporate environmental and animal health factors into public health) as being vague and indeterminate, which is problematic since many an obligation may be read into the phrase at a later stage, either by the WHO itself, while formulating rules/guidelines, or even, by the International Court of Justice which is tasked with the interpretation of treaties to settle disputes. Further potential risks outlined by Kruse were that WHO would, through the treaty, declare states of health emergencies, recommendations, etc. and acquire the right to impose globally/regionally public emergency restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance (to identity zoonotic outbreaks, as mentioned in , and experimental treatments (Article 18 of the draft). Moreover, the WHO would gain the right to declare information as being related to health, and claim sole proprietorship of all such health and vaccine-related information, apart from being able to interfere in social communications and engage in censorship.

The WHO lacks critical institutional structures for financial management, transparency, and accountability, and therefore, as a unelected and undemocratic body, the expansion of its powers and ability to dictate the health policy of sovereign nations is rightly seen as an alarming change (the same criticism may be extrapolated to the United Nations and the corpus of international law as a whole, as well). Once a treaty has been accepted and ratified by the member states, it imposes certain responsibilities and obligations on the states that are irreversible — and acquire more force with the passage of time — which more powerful nations often forsake without consequences but weaker nations more often than not must obey.

==== Big Pharma and Vaccine Mandates ====
The body representing the global innovative pharmaceutical industry in official relations with the United Nations, the IFPMA, issued a statement in response to the treaty that it impedes access to pathogen genomes to delay innovation in treatment. The treaty’s recognition of the effect of intellectual property (IP) rights on the pricing of treatment and its availability is noted (article 11 suggests the pooling of IP, particularly with manufacturers in developing countries. Additionally, given the expedited clinical trials and refusal of the WHO to acknowledge or report more recently detected side effects and adverse effects that were seen with the m-RNA vaccines developed against COVID-19, the possible imposition of vaccines whose safety profiles are indeterminate, on vast populations is a foregone conclusion. Of course, it is of massive benefit to the shareholders and CEOs of pharmaceutical companies than to the vulnerable populations of developing nations with limited access to healthcare and information. Slovakia is primed to reject the treaty, citing concerns surrounding the supposed influence of Bill Gates. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, refusing to strengthen the competencies of the WHO in any way, called the move a “fabrication created by insatiable pharmaceutical companies” and Erik Kaliňák, his senior adviser, talked about the move as “another effort by globalists to weaken the power of nation-states”.

==== References ====

# Soliman, A., Taguchi, K., Matsoso, P., Driece, R.A., da Silva Nunes, T. and Tangcharoensathien, V., 2023. WHO pandemic accord: full adherence to the principle of sovereignty. The Lancet, 402(10410), pp.1322-1323.
# Lee Jones, Shahar Hameiri, Explaining the failure of global health governance during COVID-19, International Affairs, Volume 98, Issue 6, November 2022, Pages 2057–2076.
# Zero Draft
# Innovative pharmaceutical industry statement on draft WHO Pandemic Treaty: We need to preserve what went well and address what went wrong by IFPMA
# Čítajte viac
# Clare Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Maike Voss, The futility of the pandemic treaty: caught between globalism and statism, International Affairs, Volume 98, Issue 3, May 2022, Pages 837–852
# Finkelstein, Lawrence S. “What is global governance.” Global governance 1 (1995): 367. Barnett, M. N., Pevehouse, J. C., & Raustiala, K. (2022). Global governance in a world of change. Cambridge University Press.
# LAWYERS, DOCTORS and CITIZENS ACROSS INDIA WRITE TO THE PRIME MINISTER & MINISTER, MOHFW: THE DRAFT ‘GLOBAL PANDEMIC ACCORD’ OF THE ‘WHO’ IS ULTRA VIRES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND INDIA CANNOT BE A SIGNATORY TO IT The letter addresses the plans of the World Health Organisation (WHO) through its proposed Global Pandemic Accord and IHR Amendments to be in charge of World Health and the dire implications thereof for Countries’ Sovereignty. It highlights worries about the accord’s potential impact on India’s sovereignty and citizens’ rights. The accord suggests granting the WHO unprecedented powers that could infringe upon national autonomy and individual liberties. Concerns revolve around potential coercion in medical procedures, ethical violations, and the erosion of fundamental rights. Urgent attention and scrutiny of this matter are urged to safeguard constitutional values and citizen rights. Summarised by Colin Todhunter, December 17th, 2023

Authored by Sai Priya Chodavarapu.
Published by Brhat.