The Biden administration plans to adopt a dangerous international accord that gives the World Health Organization (WHO) greater control over the way the U.S. responds to global health pandemics like COVID-19 — and to do so without Senate approval. Although the current text does not define the term “pandemic,” its meaning is all but irrelevant, since “the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement apply both during and between pandemics.”
As this article will demonstrate, the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement:
- threatens national sovereignty;
- equates the health of humans with animals and plants;
- establishes a global super-government of unelected bureaucrats, who may alter the agreement at any time;
- transfers one-fifth of all U.S. vaccines and emergency equipment to WHO and regular monetary contributions to “developing countries” (a category that includes China);
- requires nations to follow WHO regulations on “routine immunization” and “social measures” including lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing;
- calls on nations to study factors that reduce public “trust” in government pandemic policies, such as mask and vaccine mandates or social distancing;
- would empower private-sector forces such as social media companies to ramp up censorship of disfavored viewpoints;
- aims to create equity-driven, universal national health care systems around the globe;
- does not define the terms “pandemic,” “gender,” or “women”; and
- has a “Hotel California” provision stating that a nation can never discharge any “obligations which accrued while it was a Party to the WHO Pandemic Agreement,” even after it withdraws.
To make matters worse, the Biden administration lobbied WHO to rename the Pandemic Treaty as an “Agreement” so it can adopt the measure without Senate ratification (which a treaty requires).
Background
The United States joined the World Health Organization in 1948. In March 2021, WHO members called for a new international pandemic “treaty” and began writing the first draft of the “legally binding treaty” on December 7, 2022. After the Biden administration signaled that it could not win Senate ratification as required by the Constitution, WHO transformed the “treaty” into the “WHO Pandemic Agreement” and released the negotiating text of the document last October.
All 194 WHO member nations were expected to vote on the agreement at the 77th World Health Assembly from May 27-June 1. However, WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) failed to produce the full text of an agreement by the end of its last session on May 10, so WHO members will instead decide how, or whether, to continue the process.
Eroding National Sovereignty
In its own words, the World Health Organization exists “to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism.” The WHO Pandemic Agreement naturally follows from that globalist mindset.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement pointedly values global governance bodies over national sovereignty. “The interpretation and application of the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be guided by the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the World Health Organization,” not national constitutions or laws, it asserts (Article 26:1). Nations would retain their sovereignty only “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the WHO Constitution and the principles of international law, and their sovereign rights over their biological resources” (Article 3:1; see also 12:1). However, WHO agreements may limit nations’ “sovereign rights over their biological resources.” The current text specifies that the International Health Regulations (IHRs) regulate the interpretation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (Article 26:2). Part of the current agreed text states that all nations will adopt policies “consistent with” the IHRs (Article 4:4). The latest text also requires the operation of the pathogen transfer system remains “consistent with and does not run counter to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization” (Article 13:3h).
The new text of the agreement further dilutes national sovereignty by striking the requirement that nations enact its provisions enacting a One Health approach (see below) “in accordance with, national law” (formerly contained in Article 5:1). While INB negotiators could not agree a One Health approach should be carried out “in line with national law,” they agreed such policies must be “subject to applicable international law” (Article 5:2; see also Article 10:2).
The current “negotiating text” of the agreement is an improvement over the February 2023 “zero text,” which stated that nations have “the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health … provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.” That would allow WHO to act against any national policy which it unilaterally deemed not in the best interests of its people, even if its citizens overwhelmingly supported the policy. (Ironically, an Associated Press fact-check quoted this sentence as proof the agreement posed no threat to national sovereignty.)
The WHO Pandemic Agreement places a number of restrictions and demands on U.S. sovereignty:
- WHO takes a double-tithe of U.S. vaccines, medicines, and equipment. The agreement commits the United States to “fair, equitable and rapid systematic and timely sharing of benefits, both monetary and non-monetary free from disruptions of any kind. This shall include that, “in the event of a pandemic,” the U.S. will furnish “at least 20% of the real time production of each of safe, quality, efficacious and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.” The text stipulates the U.S. shall give “[No less than 10% of the production free of charge” and “at least 10% of the production at a not-for-profit price” (Article 12:4b(i)). The accord notes “pandemic-related health products … may include, without limitation, diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines and personal protective equipment” (Article 1d). The agreement will also include unspecified “additional benefit sharing provisions” (Article 12:5). The accord also limits nations’ ability to provide for their own citizens’ needs. “During a pandemic emergency, each Party should avoid maintaining national stockpiles of pandemic-related health products that unnecessarily exceed the quantities anticipated to be needed for domestic pandemic preparedness and response” (Article 13bis6).
- Real decisions are made by nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats from around the globe. The agreement creates a “Conference of the Parties” (formerly called the “Governing Body”), which may adopt amendments, annexes, or protocols that alter the WHO Pandemic Agreement’s text by a three-quarters majority vote (Articles 29, 30, and 31). These take effect when two-thirds of the nations deposit “[i]nstruments of acceptance” (Article 29:4). As a 1999 United Nations document explains, “The instruments of ‘acceptance’ or ‘approval; of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.” They are, in other words, instruments that allow the U.S. president to circumvent U.S. ratification. Aside from these requirements, “protocols” adopted by the unelected officials in the Conference of the Parties must also be ratified by the unelected officials in the World Health Assembly (Article 31). “The Conference of the Parties may establish subsidiary bodies, as well as decide upon delegating functions to bodies established under other agreements adopted under the WHO Constitution, as it deems necessary, and determine the terms and modalities of such bodies” (Article 21:7). These unelected officials may also adopt their own rules and “criteria for the participation of observers at its proceedings,” presumably including barring all observation (Article 21:5).
- The agreement will create a global medical force at WHO’s disposal. Member nations must take steps “in coordination with the WHO … to strengthen, sustain and mobilize a skilled, trained and multidisciplinary global health emergency workforce” that is available for “deployment” if other members of the agreement request it (Article 8:3).
- The agreement states that pandemic prevention requires the full-scale cultural, economic, and political transformation of nations that adopt it. The text states that “adequate pandemic prevention, preparedness, [and] response … is part of a continuum to combat other health emergencies and achieve greater health equity through resolute action on the social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health” (Introduction, 16, emphasis added). The next provision clarifies this means the “public health impact of growing threats such as climate change, poverty and hunger, [and] fragile and vulnerable settings” (Introduction, 17). According to this view, WHO bureaucrats could state any form of economic inequality, constitutional order, or religious beliefs that fail to celebrate abortion or same-sex behavior might trigger a “pandemic.”
- WHO reserves the right to cancel your reservations. WHO previously barred nations from questioning any provision of the agreement, stating simply, “No reservations may be made to the WHO Pandemic Agreement [unless permitted by other articles of the WHO Pandemic Agreement]” (Article 29). The revised text formally allows reservations … unless WHO objects to them. “Reservations may be made to the WHO Pandemic Agreement unless incompatible with the object and purpose of the WHO Pandemic Agreement,” as determined by WHO (Article 27). Nations may also make declarations or statements when accepting the agreement — an increasingly common practice in U.S. legislation — but “provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement in their application to that State or” multinational body, such as the European Union (Article 28:1).
- The WHO Pandemic Agreement contains a “Hotel California” provision which makes any transfer of national sovereignty to the WHO during U.S. membership in the agreement permanent and irrevocable. The exact wording specifies: “A State shall not be discharged by reason of the withdrawal from the obligations which accrued while it was a Party to the WHO Pandemic Agreement, nor shall the withdrawal affect any right, obligation or legal situation of that State created through the execution of this Agreement prior to its termination for that State” (Article 32:3). In other words, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The latest revised text apparently seeks to alleviate concerns that the WHO Pandemic Agreement establishes a world government by stating: “Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns” (Article 24:2).
However, nothing in the agreement prevents the Conference of Parties from exercising these powers. The agreement may or may not allow them to bestow these on the secretary. Indeed, the previous clause states, “The Secretariat shall perform … such other functions as may be determined by the Conference of the Parties” (Article 24:1). As we shall see, the WHO Pandemic Agreement appears to envision both mass emergency vaccinations, experimental vaccine trials, and “social measures” from mask mandates to mass lockdowns.
WHO: Abortion Is ‘Essential’ During Pandemics
The new text inserts requirements for “equitable access to … quality routine and essential health care services … during pandemics” (Article 6:2a; see also Article 7:1). Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the pandemic agreement, it is vital to understand that WHO considers abortion an essential service. In March 2022, WHO released a new “Abortion care guideline” stating that both chemical and surgical abortion should continue even during global health crises. “In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic … WHO has included comprehensive abortion care in the list of essential health services,” said the document.
WHO opened 2024 with a bulletin calling on member states to “counteract conservative opposition” and “enact progressive laws and policies” on abortion, homosexuality, and prostitution. “Countries must repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work and HIV transmission,” stated a bulletin titled “Advancing the ‘sexual’ in sexual and reproductive health and rights: a global health, gender equality and human rights imperative,” co-written by WHO’s director-general, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus.
The WHO Pandemic Agreement seemingly signals that it will smuggle a liberal sexual agenda by invoking the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which the agreement classifies as aiming “to achieve gender equality” (Introduction, 5). The SDGs also commit all signatories, by 2030, to “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning” (3.7).
WHO bureaucrats could weaponize the seemingly-innocuous phrase “gender equality” to support abortion-on-demand and transgender ideology. In fact, Ghebreyesus used just this language in a WHO bulletin officially released on January 1, 2024, which folded “sexual rights” into “gender equality” and stated, “People with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities often face stigma and discrimination.” Stonewall, a British LGBT pressure group, interprets a reference to “other status” (SDG 10.2) as granting special rights to people who identify as homosexual or transgender.
In this context, the WHO Pandemic Agreement’s requirement for nations to “ensure decent work and a safe and healthy environment for other essential workers that provide essential public goods and services during pandemic emergencies” could be turned into a mandate for the government to guard and protect abortionists from peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors, or pediatric gender clinics carrying out transgender surgeries from concerned parents. (See Article 7:5.) The aforementioned WHO guidelines would say abortion and, likely, transgender procedures constitute “essential medical care” during pandemics. Other concerns include those posed by Canada’s single-payer health care system, where courts ruled Christian health care providers must refer patients to life-ending “Medical Assistance in Dying.”
Yet it comes as little surprise WHO downgrades human life, considering its “One Health” proposal.
‘One Health’ Lowers Human Health to the Level of Animal and Plant Life
The most concerning aspect of the WHO Pandemic Agreement from a Christian perspective is its “One Health” philosophy, which lowers the infinite dignity of human life to that of animals and plants. All nations that adopt the agreement “commit to promote a One Health approach” before, during, and after the declared pandemic, “recognizing the interconnection between people, animals and the environment” and must be “coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative among all relevant organizations, sectors and actors” (Article 5:1).
According to the agreement, One Health “aims to sustainably balance … the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems),” which are “closely linked and interdependent” (Article 1:1b). The new proposed text binds all nations to “recognize that a range of environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic and economic factors may increase the risk of pandemics” and endeavor to “consider these factors in the development and implementation of relevant policies, strategies, plans, and/or measures, at the international, regional and national levels as appropriate, in accordance with national law, and subject to applicable international law” (Article 4:2bis).
Treatments that preserve human life and policies that lead to human flourishing, but which WHO decrees violate the ever-changing theories of climate change, have no place under the pandemic agreement’s One Health ideology.
Now, nations “shall” begin “implementing and regularly reviewing relevant national policies and strategies that reflect a One Health approach” and begin promoting “One Health joint training and continuing education programmes” for everyone who works with human, animal, or plant health (Article 5:3a and 3c).
WHO plans to further define all the “modalities, terms and conditions and operational dimensions of a One Health approach” in a new and binding “instrument” that will be “operational” by May 31, 2026 (Article 5:4). As politicians said about another health care overhaul, Americans have to adopt the WHO Pandemic Agreement “so that you can find out what is in it.”
The WHO Pandemic Agreement never specifies when a pandemic occurs. In fact, although the term “pandemic” occurs 233 times — including in such variations as “pandemic emergency,” “pandemic prevention,” “pandemic potential,” “pandemic vaccines,” “pandemic-related health products,” “pandemic-related health technologies,” and “pre-pandemic preparatory work” — the WHO accord never defines the term “pandemic” at all. The closest the document comes is when it declares a “pathogen with pandemic potential” includes a wide range of pathogens — including novel or “existing pathogens with a change in disease severity, mode of transmission, or evasion from an existing medical countermeasure” and which is “likely to be both highly transmissible with the potential for uncontrolled spread” so that it “has the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern or pandemic emergency” (Article 1f). The term “public health emergency” is also not defined. Given the powers this treaty triggers upon declaration of a pandemic, this is no small omission.
Ultimately, the definition of pandemic is immaterial, since “the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement apply both during and between pandemics, unless otherwise specified” (Article 2:2).
While One Health is a new concept to most Americans, it has won support from one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. “Modern attitudes to human health take a purely anthropocentric view — that the human being is the centre of medical attention and concern. One Health … thinking entail[s] a subtle but quite revolutionary shift of perspective: all life is equal, and of equal concern,” said a January 2023 editorial in The Lancet. “One Health will be delivered in countries, not by concordats between multilateral organisations, but by taking a fundamentally different approach to the natural world, one in which we are as concerned about the welfare of non-human animals and the environment as we are about humans. In its truest sense, One Health is a call for ecological, not merely health, equity.” (Its concern for “equity” and “decolonisation” led it to scold those “demanding that wet markets be closed to halt an emerging zoonosis.” One Health, WHO’s solution to global pandemics, would not halt evident pandemics.)
One Health’s concepts have been embraced by none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci. “Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks,” Fauci wrote in September 2020 article for Cell. (Emphases added.) He highlighted “the extraordinary importance of human population growth and movement,” stating, “the more populous and crowded we as a species become, and the more we travel, the more we provide opportunities for emerging diseases.” Yet Fauci’s vision includes “minimizing environmental perturbations” such as “intensive animal farming,” as well as “ending global poverty.”
While preserving the environment will likely require a radically lower standard of living for human beings, “probably very many of the living improvements achieved over recent centuries come at a high cost.” He concludes that he would like “to bend modernity in a safer direction.”
Theorists at the global level have already formulated the next revolution after One Health: granting human rights to animals. “Not long ago, the very notion of human rights for nonhuman animals was easily dismissed as nonsensical,” but “each extension of rights to some new group has been ‘a bit unthinkable,’” wrote Saskia Stucki of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Germany. “The novel term ‘One Rights’ is proposed here as a normative companion to the scientific One Health approach. One Rights encapsulates the union of (old) human rights and (new) animal rights. … The One Rights approach asserts that in a conceptual sense, human rights are animal rights and animal rights are human rights.”
In that conceptual framework, “the treatment of animals in factory farms may be comparable to concentration camps.” (Emphasis in original.) Of course, “[S]ome old human rights would be incompatible with fundamental animal rights and would need to be retired, such as the right to injure and kill animals for culinary pleasure,” which she compared to “slave-owners’ rights.”
While the Bible forbids all unnatural cruelty, Scripture teaches that God created only human beings in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27) and that Jesus declared that humans are “much better than” the animals (Matthew 6:26). The WHO Pandemic Agreement’s “One Health” doctrine obliterates that two millennia-old understanding.
Vaccine Mandates and Lockdowns?
The WHO Pandemic Agreement expects national governments to follow WHO’s guidance on experimental vaccines and “social measures” including mask mandates, social distancing, and even mass lockdowns. The current text of the document requires nations to adopt policies “consistent with” the IHRs on 10 separate criteria including “routine immunization” and the “prevention of the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases,” including “control measures” at the “community level” (Article 4:4e, a, and c). “COVID-19 vaccines are safe,” says WHO’s website; “Safe and effective vaccines help ensure that COVID-19 does not result in severe disease and death.” Virtually everyone, including “pregnant people,” should receive one dose; the more immunocompromised someone is, the more doses he or she should receive. Even on the eve of its WHA conference in May 2024, WHO vouches, “The AstraZeneca vaccine is safe and effective.” Yet after administering three billion doses, AstraZeneca began pulling its Vaxzevria vaccine from the market on March 5, because it causes “deadly blood clots and low blood platelet counts.”
Later, the current text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement states that each nation “shall” provide “essential health care services” even “while maintaining … social measures during pandemics” (Article 6:2a).
The World Health Organization lists the following “Public Health and Social Measures,” or PHSM, “at our disposal”:
“PHSM include personal protective measures (e.g., physical distancing, avoiding crowded and poorly ventilated settings, hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, mask-wearing); environmental measures (e.g., cleaning, disinfection, ventilation); surveillance and response measures (e.g., testing, genetic sequencing, contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine); physical distancing measures (e.g. regulating the number and flow of people attending gatherings, maintaining distance in public or workplaces, domestic movement restrictions); and international travel-related measures.” (Emphases added.)
Separately, WHO notes, “Large scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions, often referred to as ‘lockdowns’, can slow COVID?’19 transmission by limiting contact between people. … WHO recognizes that at certain points, some countries have had no choice but to issue stay-at-home orders and other measures, to buy time.”
More Emergency Vaccines, More Malpractice Lawsuits
Despite the trail of false and misleading government statements about the COVID-19 shot, the WHO Pandemic Agreement clearly forecasts a long future of additional emergency vaccine authorizations and serious injuries, possibly free from liability. The latest revision states each nation “shall strengthen its national … authority responsible for the authorization and approval of pandemic-related health products” (Article 14:1). The latest text forecasts that WHO might share confidential health information with Big Pharma. After requiring nations to “endeavour to develop, strengthen and maintain health information systems,” one provision in the current draft states, “The Conference of the Parties shall develop further rules, norms and regulations regarding sharing of information by WHO to third Parties under this Agreement” (Article 6:3). Presumably, health information produced in U.S. laboratories at U.S. taxpayers’ expense could be transferred to the pharmaceutical giants that collectively constitute one of WHO’s greatest sources of funding — free of charge. This would also alert those companies of a coming market demand.
“The Conference of the Parties shall develop further rules, norms and regulations regarding sharing of information by WHO to third Parties under this Agreement” (Article 6:3).
The agreement signs the full population up as guinea pigs. All nations “shall” undertake “clinical trials in their jurisdiction” of among “representative study populations,” of course “taking into account relevant national and international ethical guidelines” (Article 9:3).
The current text of the agreement completely omits Article 15, dealing with “[c]ompensation and liability management.” But there is evidence WHO bureaucrats anticipate that future emergency vaccines will harm our health — and that they aim to relieve Big Pharma of liability. A previous version of the accord set up “no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)” to provide a “financial remedy for individuals experiencing serious adverse events resulting from a pandemic vaccine.” Somehow, WHO believed advertising potentially serious adverse reactions would “promot[e] pandemic vaccine acceptance” (Article 15:2). It also prescribed that nations “shall develop national strategies for managing liability risks … regarding the manufacturing, distribution, administration and use of novel vaccines” (Article 15:1).
The latest version of the agreement leaves out these provisions, simply stating, “The GSCL Network may consider developing recommendations, for the consideration of the Conference of the Parties, for a multilateral mechanism for liability risk management for novel pandemic” (Article 13:6). An alternate clause in the latest revision states that WHO “in collaboration with relevant entities and multilateral organizations as appropriate” will develop recommendations for “the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and other strategies for managing liability related to novel pandemic vaccines during pandemic emergencies, including for the GSCL Network and with particular regard to persons in vulnerable situations” (Article 13:8alt). Under the agreement’s terms, the Conference of the Parties could add these or any other deleted amendments back to the accord after its adoption.
National reactions may range anywhere from holding the manufacturers responsible to entirely acquitting them of any liability, as was the case for the COVID shot. The potential for corporate price-gouging earned criticism from some on the Left. Public Citizen, a progressive organization founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, and which believes the treaty does not grant WHO enough compulsory power over private industries, noted in its written comments that the “U.S. government was a full partner in development of the NIH-Moderna vaccine, yet the absence of contractual access conditions meant Moderna was free to charge high prices from the outset and then quadruple those prices this year, harming the U.S. and global vaccination efforts.”
Censoring Information about ‘Substandard’ Medical Treatments — Like Ivermectin?
Despite foreseeing a future of experimental vaccinations harming people worldwide, governments could use the WHO Pandemic Agreement to prevent doctors from exploring or sharing information about alternative treatments. The WHO Pandemic Agreement says nations “shall … strengthen rapid alert systems and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related products” (Article 14:6). While the innocuous-sounding provision should encourage governments to thwart health care scams, it could also be used to shut down information about approaches the government does not favor. For instance, the FDA belittled the use of ivermectin, despite an Israeli study stating “ivermectin should be a viable option” and a WHO decision backing clinical trials of ivermectin.
Dr. Mary Nass of Maine had her medical license suspended in January 2022 for dispensing ivermectin to COVID patients. Last December, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine extended her suspension through next April 30 and imposed a $10,000 fine. Dr. Nass has since become an outspoken critic of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. “We’re undergoing a soft coup, and the idea is to create a whole new set of laws and ignore the existing human rights laws and others laws under the pretext of pandemic preparedness and the biosecurity agenda,” warned Nass. “Embedded in this concept is a peculiar notion that humans are no longer of greater value than animals.”
Combatting ‘Misinformation’ and ‘Infodemics’?
WHO’s controversial leader announced his desire to curtail dissent at the height of the pandemic. In February 2020, Director-General Ghebreyesus declared, “We’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus and is just as dangerous.”
Yet earlier drafts of the WHO Pandemic Agreement defined an “‘infodemic’ as too much information,” as well as “false or misleading information” which “leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.” To ensure citizens do not receive too much information, previous texts of the agreement stated that nations “shall” engage in “infodemic management,” including the “effective international collaboration” with “the aim of countering and combatting false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” and carrying out “infodemic management.”
While much overtly Orwellian language has been removed from the latest text, the WHO Pandemic Agreement begins with the assumption that any nation adopting the compact will promote “trust” in government health pronouncements by “ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization” (Introduction, 13). The latest text still requires governments to study “factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies” (Article 18:2). Interestingly, while the April 22 revision said governments shall “conduct research to inform policies” on these matters, the latest revision says governments shall “conduct research and inform policies,” seemingly spurring governments to take more restrictive actions. Nations should also promote “the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication, and community engagement” to goad the public into accepting its pandemic measures (Article 6:2d; see also Article 18:1). WHO helpfully offers to craft nations’ talking points, stating that “WHO shall, as appropriate and upon request, continue to provide technical support to States Parties, especially developing countries towards communication and public awareness of pandemic related measures” (Article 18:3).
The primary cause of public “mistrust” in public health institutions is those institutions’ self-contradictory spread of misinformation and disinformation about such “social measures” as masking, social distancing, quarantines, and the COVID-19 shot. WHO officials are not inoculated against this malady. WHO chief Ghebreyesus, who gained his position with China’s patronage, began the pandemic by opposing former President Donald Trump’s flight restrictions from Wuhan and claiming the Chinese Communist Party’s handling of the coronavirus set “a new standard for outbreak control.”
Perhaps nothing unmasks the double-minded advice of public health “experts” than their gyroscopic changes on whether mask work at all. In April 2020, WHO released a guidance that discouraged universal mask wearing, which correctly noted, “One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that health care workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk of infection compared with those who wore medical masks.” In fact, a 2015 BMJ study found that cloth masks provide “almost 0%” filtration of viruses, and that “[m]oisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.” Yet WHO subsequently authorized masks for all God’s children ages six and up.
The most significant U.S. government official of the pandemic not only admitted to spreading misinformation but to doing so willfully, intentionally, and to advance a personal agenda. Dr. Anthony Fauci engaged in multiple flip-flops about wearing masks, initially deriding mask use, then mandating masks for toddlers at age two, then conceding that cloth masks provide little protection against the coronavirus. Fauci explained that he changed his rhetoric to assure Americans did not snap up so many N95 ventilators as to create a shortage for health care workers. In time, then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky lifted the mask mandate after a significant change in public polling, but no underlying change in the science.
Fauci also admitted continually changing the percentage of Americans who would have to have the COVID shot before achieving herd immunity. “I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’” Fauci said.
The Biden administration repeatedly spread disinformation about the efficacy of the COVID-19 shot:
- Joe Biden promised, “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
- In May 2021, Fauci said those who took the shot become “dead ends” for the virus. “When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community.”
- CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told MSNBC, “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick.”
Despite this track record, Biden tried to establish a Disinformation Governance Board headed by a millennial with a penchant for bawdy show tunes.
Americans have witnessed government attempts to “combat” narratives it brands false. When 15,000 public health experts led by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which argued against closing schools and businesses, Fauci and National Institute of Health leader Dr. Francis Collins coordinated (in Collins’s words) “a quick and devastating published takedown” of the document. Yet America continues to suffer the ill effects of COVID lockdowns — including learning loss, a teen suicide spike stemming from an isolation-fueled mental health crisis, increased risk of myocarditis in young men, and the needless deaths of elderly nursing home residents in blue states — years after Fauci’s quarantines ended. Collins, who identifies as a Christian, has since admitted taking a “narrow view” of COVID-19 mitigation.
Yet if the U.S. adopts the new accord, censorship threatens to become a permanent, public-private partnership.
More Social Media Surveillance and Censorship
Article 17 of the WHO Pandemic Agreement calls on nations to adopt “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches” to promoting their message and policies. They should see that “relevant stakeholders, including the private sector, and civil society” help draw up “national pandemic prevention, preparedness and response plan(s) that address pre-, post- and interpandemic periods” (Article 17:1, 3).
In part due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the government set up a portal flagging accounts for Facebook and Twitter to censor. The Twitter Files reveal how the government secretly pressured the social media outlet to blacklist or outright ban thousands of accounts; Twitter boasted about impacting 1.5 million accounts in a little over one month. The Biden White House’s (taxpayer-funded) Office of Digital Strategy employed at least two dozen people to “monitor and, if needed, combat disinformation, including encouraging different sites to fact-check” stories, reported Natasha Korecki for Politico.
Twitter was not an outlier on social media:
- In 2020, Facebook promised “to remove content with false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities that could cause harm to people who believe them.”
- YouTube’s then-CEO, Susan Wojcicki, committed to begin “removing information that is problematic. … Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”
- Medium vowed to remove posts denying the “effectiveness of social distancing or quarantine for COVID-19, or calls encouraging people to suspend these practices,” or that “masks don’t help prevent the spread of COVID-19” or make it harder to breathe.
WHO Chief Tells Nations: ‘Counter’ Anyone Saying the Agreement Threatens National Sovereignty
In November 2023, Ghebreyesus denounced any claim that “this agreement will undermine a country’s sovereignty by giving power to the World Health Organization (WHO)” as “fake news, lies, conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation.”
“I strongly urge all countries involved in the pandemic negotiations to actively counter these false narratives,” he said. “There should be no room for confusion or doubt in this matter.” As noted, had he wished to dispel any doubt, he could have removed the sovereignty-destroying provisions from the agreement.
The heart of any government effort to suppress “misinformation” is that the government defines truth and has the power to stifle any other viewpoint. In reality, the evidence rarely bares out the contention that the government knows, or even cares about, truth. Attempts to suppress the free exchange of ideas violate the First Amendment and this nation’s most-cherished principles. Thomas Jefferson best expressed the American ideal when he said, “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Most importantly, censorship vitiates the Christian view that God gave human beings a rational mind capable of understanding and reasoning. The WHO Pandemic Agreement would significantly escalate government censorship, suppression of information, and interference in our right to think and reason together.
No Condemnation of Foreign Nations’ Draconian Anti-COVID Policies
Alas, U.S. policies seemed mild compared to foreign nations’ repressive anti-COVID measures:
- China’s “zero COVID” policy saw police weld people inside their apartments, often unable to get food.
- Australia locked anyone who tested positive or was in close contact with someone who had COVID in camps surrounded by barbed wire.
- Greece forced pensioners over 60 to take the shot or be fined one-sixth of their fixed monthly income.
- Latvia barred unvaccinated lawmakers from voting on laws, even remotely. Yet the defenders of “Our Democracy” uttered not a word.
- Italy restricted “most social activities” to those who had a Super Green Pass, which proved they had taken the shot.
- India’s lockdowns stranded migrant workers with no way to support themselves: “96% of them didn’t receive rations from the government, 70% didn’t receive any cooked aliment and as many as 89% didn’t receive any payment from their employers during the lockdown.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi also targeted journalists and “relied on an army of online trolls who … attack[ed] them in the most personal and vile ways,” write Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney in their book, “The Infodemic: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free.”
The WHO offered only muted criticism of the worst of these policies. Dr. Ghebreyesus called the Chinese communists’ policy of starvation-by-blowtorch “irresponsible” and “not sustainable.”
In the latest text, the section professing “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons, and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health of every human being” (Article 3:2) remains in white. It had previously been removed altogether.
In fact, with this agreement’s single-minded focus on quotas, some animals are more equal than others.
Global Redistribution from the West to ‘Developing Countries’ … Like China
The revised text explicitly adds that research can include both “public and private sector … including public-private partnerships,” particularly creating vaccine and health product manufacturing “facilities with a regional operational scope that are based in developing countries” (Article 10:2d). Nations must also commit to “working through the Conference of the Parties … to establish regional and/ or global technology and know-how transfer hubs, coordinated by the WHO and other relevant regional or international organizations” (Article 11:5; see also Article 11:2e). The agreement also instructs nations “shall promote … the active participation of, and international and regional collaboration with, scientists and research institutions and centres, particularly from developing countries” (Article 9:2b). WHO classifies the People’s Republic of China as a developing country.
The revised text states that members “shall” commit to the “transfer of technology and know-how on mutually agreed terms and the sharing of technical, scientific and legal expertise, as well as financial assistance” for nations that sign the agreement and “lack the means and resources to implement [its] provisions” (Article 19:1).
To this effect, the latest revised text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement establishes three separate bodies to transfer U.S. wealth and equipment to foreign nations:
- The WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System), which will assure all nations provide “fair, equitable and rapid, systematic and timely sharing of benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, free from disruptions of any kind” (Article 12:4a; see also Article 12:3b). PABS will also facilitate “annual monetary contributions” (Article 12:4b(ii)). The PABS agreement will also include unspecified “additional benefit sharing provisions” (Article 12:5). The kinks have yet to be worked out, as the agreement states, “The provisions governing the PABS System, including scope, definitions … modalities, terms and conditions, and operational dimensions shall be developed and agreed in a legally binding instrument (hereby called PABS Instrument)” (Article 12:2).
- The Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL Network), which will oversee foreign nations’ “equitable, timely and affordable and unhindered access to pandemic-related health products”; that is, the redistribution of Western goods to the developing world. This new network “shall be developed, coordinated and convened by WHO … under the oversight of the Conference of the Parties” (Article 13:1). The April 22 revision demanded that all member nations “shall prioritize sharing through the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network for equitable allocation based on public health risk and need over bilateral donation agreements” (Article 13:1). The Conference of the Parties will define the “structure, functions, and modalities” of the network at its first meeting (Article 13:2). But the accord remains firm about one thing: “[T]he Parties of the agreement shall not apply any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede supply, distribution or procurement of any medical or health related goods, including medicine, medical equipment, spare parts, raw materials, software, access codes, etc.” (Article 13:4bis).
- A “Coordinating Financial Mechanism,” created to provide “sustainable financial support” for the agreement (Article 20:3). This mechanism will “identify all sources of financing that are available to serve the purposes of supporting the implementation of this Agreement and the International Health Regulations” (Article 20:3c). Wealthy nations will offer “developing countries … grants and concessional loans” (Article 20:2b). This mechanism will also prepare five-year plans (Article 20:3a). Details of the mechanism’s machinations will be spelled out one year from adoption of the agreement. Like much of the agreement, this financial mechanism “shall function under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties and be accountable to it.” The unelected “Conference of the Parties shall adopt terms of reference for the Mechanism and modalities for its operationalization and governance, within 12 months after the entry into force of the WHO Pandemic Agreement” (Article 20:4). The Conference of Parties will also explore creating “additional financial resources to support the implementation of this Agreement” as early as its first meeting; this may involve “new or existing funds,” but the new financial resources will be “accountable to it” — that is, to the Conference of Parties (Article 20:5).
In addition, pharmaceutical companies worry that multiple provisions in the agreement will cut into their profit margins, making it unprofitable to pursue vaccines or other treatments during the next pandemic, stifling innovation and prolonging the crisis. The leaked document details concerns over transfer of technology, “know-how,” and intellectual property rights, with its leaker hoping to convince WHO to transfer such rights only “consensually” or at least “consistent with relevant international norms” (Proposed Article 11:3).
‘Equity’ Means Quotas and Racial Discrimination in Health Care
Equity is the regnant term for government-sanctioned discrimination. Vice President Kamala Harris contrasted “equity” with “equality,” defining the former as equality of outcome. But to create equal outcomes, nations must treat equal behavior unequally. The original text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, drafted in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter riots and released in October 2023, mentions some variant of the word “equity” 34 times in 30 pages; the latest text increases this to 35 variants of the word “equity” in 32 pages.
The new agreement states it is “guided by equity” (Article 2:1) and sees “equity as a goal and outcome of” all pandemic actions (Article 3:4).
Each nation “shall” commit to “eliminating all forms of inequalities and discrimination and other disparities, such as unequal remuneration and barriers faced by women” (Article 6:2b). Nowhere in the document is the term “women” defined. Nations also commit to “supporting individual and collective empowerment’ (Article 6:2d); the agreement does not specify which groups nations must collectively empower. The WHO Pandemic Agreement promotes these transparent social policies as necessary “to protect the continued safety, mental health, wellbeing and capacity of its health and care workforce” (Article 6:2).
Previous drafts of this treaty demanded that nations “address disparities and inequalities due to gender and age, within the health and care workforce … while addressing discrimination, stigma and inequality and eliminating bias, including unequal remuneration and opportunities.” They had to note that “women face significant barriers to reaching leadership and decision-making roles” (Article 7:1b). The latest text further verifies concerns that unelected officials at the World Health Organization intend to weaponize global health guidelines to promote left-wing policy outcomes.
Discrimination in the name of “equity” violates not only sound policy but biblical morality. Christianity rejects such discrimination against any group. As this author has written, God demands that: “all people stand on level ground at the foot of the Cross and when they approach the bench. Therefore, He decrees one law for all people, irrespective of their ethnicity (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 19:15; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16 and 29; and Proverbs 24:23). Uneven weights and measures are an ‘abomination to the Lord’ — the worst abomination is having uneven scales of justice based on race (Proverbs 20:10).”
WHO Pandemic Agreement Does Not Define ‘Gender’
Equity sees the world based on gender, not sex, and so does WHO’s Pandemic Agreement. The medically accurate term “sex” occurred only once, in a previous version of the treaty, in its definition of “persons in vulnerable situations.” INB negotiators removed it entirely from the April 2024 revision and latest text; the word “gender” occurs twice and, like much else in the agreement, is never defined.
The ambiguity and fluidity of the word “gender” could allow governments to apply this accord’s provisions based on transgender-identity rather than sex. This should concern Christians at a time when the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled that using gendered language amounts to invidious discrimination, and the nation’s most prestigious newspapers claim “deadnaming” and misgendering “puts trans lives at risk.”
The World Health Organization’s Department of Gender, Rights and Equity – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (GRE-DEI) intended to draft guidelines for so-called “gender-affirming care” at a meeting from February 19-21, 2024. On January 15, WHO complained that too many health care settings “lack policies to facilitate access to inclusive and gender affirming care,” which includes “a number of social, psychological, behavioural or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions.” But WHO had to slow the process when the media revealed WHO tapped radical transgender activists, most of whom have no medical background, to staff its Guideline Development Group. On February 1, WHO announced it had put off the guidelines’ development, stating, “The overall process for development of the guideline could take up to 2 years.”
‘Universal Health Care’
Part of the WHO Pandemic Agreement’s shortcomings is its plea for equity-based socialized medicine. The treaty states that each nation “commits to develop, strengthen and maintain a resilient health system … taking into account the need for equity … with a view to achieving universal health coverage” (Article 6:1; see also Introduction, 12). Not only do nations commit to universal health care, but they also “shall take appropriate measures in order to ensure decent work” for all “essential workers that provide essential public goods and services” (Article 7:5). Socialized medicine inevitably leads to mandatory government rationing. The agreement clarifies that “‘universal health coverage’ means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. It covers the full continuum of essential health services, from health promotion to prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care” (Article 1i).
The U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) fared so poorly at providing its people’s health care needs that the British Red Cross called it “a humanitarian crisis.”
Republicans Oppose Biden’s Bid to Implement a Treaty without Senate Ratification
As noted, the WHO initially referred to this pandemic agreement as a “treaty,” but Joe Biden asked that its status be changed. A treaty requires Senate ratification, while an agreement can be adopted without Senate consultation. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) called the ex-treaty “an egregious breach of constitutional principle.”
The substance of the WHO Pandemic Agreement remains the same, whatever its title. That has won the opposition of Republicans in both chambers of Congress:
- Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has introduced the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.
- Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced the WHO Withdrawal Act (H.R. 79), which would immediately end U.S. membership, repeal the legislation authorizing our WHO membership in 1948, and ban all U.S. funds from WHO projects.
- The American Sovereignty Restoration Act would withdraw the United States from WHO and other international bodies such as the United Nations and repeal the legislation that first authorized U.S. membership.
- Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced a narrower “bill to limit the authority of the World Health Organization on the United States and to oppose amendments to the WHO Constitution that have not been approved by Congress” ( 4305) in the last Congress.
All those bills were designed to protect the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and pare back executive overreach.
WHO Pandemic Agreement Could Create ‘Turnkey Totalitarianism’: FRC
The Biden administration opened the public comment period just before Christmas, on December 22, 2023, and closed the 30-day comment period on January 22. Family Research Council submitted a formal comment calling on “HHS to reject the Draft Agreement in its entirety and reconsider the need for a pandemic agreement. The Draft Agreement cannot be salvaged.”
“[T]he Draft Agreement is, first and foremost, a global political, economic, and social manifesto,” which promotes “yielding national sovereignty [and] centralizing international medical power in the WHO,” said the comment submitted by Chris Gacek, FRC’s senior fellow for Regulatory Affairs. The proposed agreement would create “a web of freedom-strangling entities, legal regulatory mandates, and relationships that, when needed, can be switched on to function as a ‘turnkey totalitarian state.’”
FRC has set up a campaign asking citizens to lobby the administration against adopting the WHO Pandemic Agreement.
This article was originally published on January 9, 2024. It has been updated on January 20, February 20, May 16, and May 22, 2024.
LifeNews Note: Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.
