NEW unedited draft "Bureau's Text" of the proposed "Pandemic Treaty"
Is it possible that they actually made this POS worse? and... Where is the updated version of the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations? I repeat... Don't fall for the decoy!!!
I publish this article under protest.
Why is no one discussing the fact that amendments to the International Health Regulations WERE ADOPTED LAST YEAR? CLICK HERE
Only 6 months remain in the 18 month period to REJECT the amendments that WERE ADOPTED LAST YEAR.
Every nation has the right to REJECT them, but action must be taken before late November, 2023. WAKE UP WORLD!!!
Why is an updated version of the 307 proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations NOT available.
Don’t fall for the decoy!!!!!!!!!
An unedited draft of the “Bureau’s Text” version of the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” has been made available. Many thanks to @IncrementalLog1 for sharing this with me.
CLICK HERE to follow @IncrementalLog1
The new appearance of various “options” throughout the text of the latest version of the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” seems to indicate that the member nations are VERY far from agreement.
As the WHO is known to say:
“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Article 1. Use of terms
Some very “interesting” definitions are included…
(b) “pandemic” means the global spread of a pathogen or variant that infects human populations with limited or no immunity through sustained and high transmissibility from person to person, overwhelming health systems with severe morbidity and high mortality, and causing social and economic disruptions, all of which require effective national and global collaboration and coordination for its control;
(e) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means...;
(f) “One Health approach” means an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent;
(g) “infodemic” means too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines the public health response;
(h) “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 5. Strengthening pandemic prevention and preparedness through a One Health approach
I suggest choosing option 5.B.
Two options are presented for Article 5
1. The Parties, recognizing that the majority of emerging infectious diseases and pandemics are caused by zoonotic pathogens, commit, in the context of pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, to promote and implement a One Health approach at national, and, as appropriate, at regional and global levels that is coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative among all relevant actors, with the application of, and in accordance with, domestic law and existing instruments and initiatives.
(f) promote or establish One Health joint training and continuing education programmes for human, animal and environmental health workforces, particularly for veterinary and environmental services needed to prevent spillover events, to build complementary skills, capacities and capabilities to prevent, detect, control, and respond to pandemic health threats.
Option 5.B: not to include the Article
Article 9. Research and development
Suerie Moon pointed out a MAJOR disappointment with some of the changes in this new draft.
“The R&D text is much weaker,” said Suerie Moon, director of the Global Health Centre of Geneva Graduate Institute, pointing to Article 9 of the update. “We’ve lost the proposal to put conditions on public funding [of pharma R&D].
“In the old Article 9 there was this very clean and clear clause establishing conditions for publicly-funded research and development,” she said. That text made much stronger reference to requirements for the transparent publication of prices of pharma products; data sharing and technology transfer,” in the case of products emerging from publicly-funded R&D.
In the new text, however, such provisions are more cautious and conditioned, stating for instance, that “each Party, when providing public funding for research and development for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, shall, in accordance with national laws and as appropriate taking into account the extent of public funding,” promote transparency around R&D results, tech-sharing, and equitable dissemination of health products.
“It’s basically a huge step back from countries wielding the power of the law to regulate, and more reliance on voluntary measures,” said Moon.
“There are a lot more references to ‘as appropriate’ – I think the phrase is used some 47 times
Article 10. Liability Risk Management
Is it possible that logic, reason and ethics have infiltrated the negotiations?
The parties to the treaty would only have to
“consider… sufficiently funding the schemes” (section 2).
Each party shall “endeavor to ensure…” (Section 4).
“In accordance with national laws…” (Section 6)
Yeah, right. At first glance, it sounds good. But it’s actually bullshit. Try harder!
1. The Parties shall establish, no later than XX, using existing relevant models as a reference, regional or international vaccine injury compensation scheme(s) for injuries resulting from the use and/or administration of vaccines developed for response to pandemics that is /are transparent and complements any liability protections and/or other liability risk management mechanisms.
2. Each Party shall consider implementing and/or participating in vaccine injury compensation scheme(s) for injuries resulting from the use and/or administration of vaccines developed for response to pandemics, and shall consider developing strategies for sufficiently funding the scheme(s).
3. Each Party shall develop national strategies for managing liability risks in its territory regarding the manufacture, distribution, administration, and use of vaccines developed for response to pandemics. Strategies could include, for example, the development of model contract provisions, vaccine injury compensation mechanisms, insurance mechanisms, policy frameworks and principles for negotiation of procurement agreements and/or donation of vaccines developed for response to pandemics, and building expertise for contract negotiations in this matter.
4. Each Party shall endeavour to ensure that in contracts for the supply or purchase of vaccines developed for response to pandemics, buyer/recipient indemnity clauses, if any, are exceptionally provided as a last resort arrangement, and are reasonably time-bound with the end date expressly defined from the outset. The Parties further agree that such buyer/recipient indemnity clauses should be accepted for novel products only.
5. The Parties shall work with WHO and other relevant organizations and entities on the foregoing, including to develop recommendations for and capacity building tools on, liability risk management during pandemic emergencies, regarding the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of pandemic-related products.
6. In accordance with national laws, each Party shall make publicly available information regarding any global, regional, or country-level liability frameworks and vaccine compensation scheme that apply to the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of pandemic-related products during pandemic emergencies in its jurisdiction.
Article 14. Regulatory strengthening
The text below is my favorite piece of disgusting text.
I don’t think that encouraging manufacturers to “generate relevant data” means what they would like to think it means.
6. Each Party shall, in accordance with national laws, encourage manufacturers, as appropriate, to generate relevant data and diligently pursue regulatory authorizations and/or approvals of pandemic-related products with WHO listed authorities, other priority authorities, and WHO.
Article 17. Implementation, acknowledging differences in levels of development
Adopt a developing country?
Sovereignty for developing country parties only?
Three options are presented for Article 17
1. All Parties shall fully implement the WHO CA+, recognizing their different levels of development, and respectful of their national sovereignty.
2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties to support implementation of the provisions of this WHO CA+, should be given full consideration for financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, and support for sustainable capacity building.
3. Where a developing country Party lacks a necessary capacity to implement specific provision(s) of the WHO CA+, the Parties shall work together to identify the most relevant partner(s) that can support development of such capacities and shall cooperate to ensure that the necessary financial and human resources are made available.
1. The provisions contained in this WHO CA+ shall be implemented by developing country Parties in accordance with this Article.
2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of pandemics and other public health emergencies of international concern and of those that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.
3. Financial assistance, technology transfer, technical assistance, and support for capacity building shall be provided by developed country Parties to help developing country Parties to implement the provisions of the WHO CA+. The extent and the timing of implementation of the provisions of the WHO CA+ shall be related to the implementation capacities of developing country Parties, recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.
4. Where a developing country Party continues to lack the necessary capacity, implementation of the provision(s) concerned will not be required until implementation capacity has been acquired. Where a developing country Party continues to lack the necessary primary health care and hospital care capacities to the resilience levels as determined under Article 6, implementation of other capacity building shall not be required in such a manner that investments will be diverted away from primary health care or hospital care capacities.
5. The extent to which developing country Parties will implement their commitments under the WHO CA+ will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under this Article related to financial resources, transfer of technology, technical assistance, and support for capacity building for developing country Parties and will fully take into account administrative and institutional capabilities as well as that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
6. Developing country Parties shall have full flexibility in the implementation of the WHO CA+ in light of their capacities, avoiding undue burden and respectful of their national sovereignty. In accordance with their national capacities and priorities premised upon sovereign prerogatives.
Option 17.C: not to include Article 17
Article 32. Amendments to the WHO CA+
I cannot believe my eyes! The text below should be used to fix the manner in which amendments to the International Health Regulations are adopted. This is much better. If you have any curiosity why this is, give me a call at +1 310-619-3055.
3. The Parties shall make every effort to adopt any proposed amendment to the WHO CA+ by consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, the amendment shall as a last resort be adopted by a three-quarters majority vote of the Parties present and voting at the session. For purposes of this Article, Parties present and voting means Parties present and casting an affirmative or negative vote. Any adopted amendments shall be communicated by the Secretariat to the Depositary, who shall circulate it to all Parties for acceptance.
4. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force, for those Parties having accepted it, on the ninetieth day after the date of receipt by the Depositary of an instrument of acceptance by two-thirds of the Parties.
5. The amendment shall enter into force for any other Party on the ninetieth day after the date on which that Party deposits with the Depositary its instrument of acceptance of the said amendment.
Article 34. Protocols to the WHO CA+
HOLY CRAP!!!! This is NOT good. Can you spot the problem?? Compare it to the details in Article 32. There appears to be no way to opt out of adopted protocols, even if the member nation voted against them. This also applies to annexes in Article 33.
1. Any Party may propose protocols to the WHO CA+. Such proposals will be considered by the Conference of the Parties, which may invite the views of the Consultative Body.
2. The Conference of the Parties may adopt protocols to the WHO CA+. In adopting these protocols every effort shall be made to reach consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been exhausted and no agreement reached, the protocol shall as a last resort be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting at the session. For the purposes of this Article, Parties present and voting means Parties present and casting an affirmative or negative vote.
3. The text of any proposed protocol shall be communicated to the Parties by the Secretariat at least three months before the session at which it is proposed for adoption.
4. Only Parties to the WHO CA+ may be Parties to a protocol.
The very last words in the document are of particular interest…
Where is the “compilation document”? When will it be made available?
[Several Member States proposed text for or suggested inclusion of annexes. These can be found in the compilation document. It is suggested to discuss the inclusion of possible annexes in a later stage, as appropriate, and as decided by the INB.]
by James Roguski
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
All content is free to all readers.
All support is deeply appreciated.
James Roguski’s newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.