health

Pandemic treaty plans thrashed out at WHO

29 Comments
By Robin MILLARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.


29 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

What could possible go wrong?

2 ( +9 / -7 )

"The lessons of the pandemic must not go unlearned," WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told the negotiating panel at the start of three days of talks,

Well said. It has been a hard learning curve.

It is a shame that some countries (namely China) ignored WHO advice until quite recently.

That is the first lesson. Listen to the WHO.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

What could possible go wrong?

Covid-19, which is why the plans are so important.

The whole situation can be blamed on the huge efforts many countries took to defang the WHO after the pandemic influenza scare of 2009, some of those countries are even the same now complaining bitterly why the WHO could not do more to avoid covid. They are the reason.

Nobody is expecting the treaty to go smoothly and be put in motion in a short time, too many interests are affected so it will require a lot of effort to be negotiated to a point it can be at the same time efficient but acceptable for those that need to participate.

The obvious problem is that China is a very likely origin for new and old pathogens that could become the next pandemic, but it has shown no willingness to participate in anything that could weaken its position, and the treaty is mostly that, putting the global priorities first instead of any country's.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

"Governments must resist any attempts to turn a pandemic treaty into another obscene profit opportunity for pharmaceutical companies."

I don't trust Big Pharma.

I don't trust government run companies like those that made the Chinese vaccines.

I don't trust the WHO.

I don't trust any of them because they have lied, continue to lie and will lie in the future.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

BroncoToday  07:41 am JST

"Governments must resist any attempts to turn a pandemic treaty into another obscene profit opportunity for pharmaceutical companies."

I don't trust Big Pharma.

I don't trust government run companies like those that made the Chinese vaccines.

I don't trust the WHO.

I don't trust any of them because they have lied, continue to lie and will lie in the future.

Agree 100%. These people lie as naturally as they breathe.

I see this proposed treaty as a key piece in the framework for a global control network, together with central bank digital currencies and the like. It's likely that a so-called pandemic treaty will include provisions for a vaccine passport, and people without the mandated jab du jour won't be permitted to travel abroad and probably domestically either. This could tie in with programs like the planned 15-minute cities, one of which will be trialled in Oxford in 2024, where people's movements in their cars will be restricted to a certain number of times per month.

But it doesn't have to be this way if enough people resist this technocratic tyranny. Push back, don't comply, and spread the word about what's really going on. And if these crooked organisations try to crack down, make them pay dearly.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Bronco trusts Elvis!!!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I don't trust any of them because they have lied, continue to lie and will lie in the future.

Agree 100%. These people lie as naturally as they breathe.

What part of the proposals and arguments used to justify them are lies according to you?

The measures proposed are being discussed precisely because the point is ot have a balanced system that would prevent the most serious problems of the pandemic including undue control from companies in the distribution of drugs or vaccines. This completely contradicts your argument, which would make this global control focused on profit much easier to do.

Vaccine passports have existed for decades, there is nothing new about them and people have their Yellow cards or refrain from visiting endemic countries without problems, if this was as damaging as you tried to present this would have been happened from a long time ago.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Vaccine passports have existed for decades, there is nothing new about them and people have their Yellow cards or refrain from visiting endemic countries without problems, if this was as damaging as you tried to present this would have been happened from a long time ago.

But not in the forms we saw raise their ugly heads during COVID. Like a passport to enter a shop, get on a train etc. These were draconian considering the nature of the risk to the vast majority of the population and the effectiveness of the jabs.

Yellow cards have been a physical document.

But the new generation are electronic, with the potential to link to other systems to deny those who're not what a given government considers to be up to date with the latest shot access to employment, transport, their bank accounts, and more. And people who flat out refuse to get the passport at all could essentially be excluded from society. The technology is already available to do this, and be linked with proposed CBDCs.

Given that some people are obsessed with power and that we've already seen gross abuses of it around the world over the last 3 years, the most prudent course of action would be to reject digital vaccine passports out of hand. If you can't see the dangers involved, your either blind or complicit.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

WHO should be renamed Bill & Melinda Health Corp or be independent by cutting finance from any Medical Lobbying Group.

https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/does-bill-gates-control-world-health-organization

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation currently funds just over 12% of the World Health Organization’s operations, making it the second biggest donor to the WHO after the U.S. If the United States permanently withdraws funding, the foundation would become the largest single donor. The Gavi Alliance, a public-private partnership that supports vaccine development, is the WHO's next-largest donor, just ahead of the U.K. The Gates Foundation has given Gavi $4 billion since launching it in 1999.

In 2014 the WHO's then-director general, Dr. Margaret Chan, acknowledged that “my budget is highly earmarked, so it is driven by what I call donor interests.” However, the WHO is formally controlled under a UN charter by the World Health Assembly, composed of delegates from sovereign nations, who pay assessments and elect the director general.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Negotiators are meeting in Geneva this week to thrash out a pandemic treaty aimed at ensuring the flaws that turned COVID-19 into a global crisis could never happen again.

The first step must be to actually acknowledge those flaws, the real ones, rather than burying them and finding silly excuses. Also, those who lied must be held accountable.

If they skip over this, the same thing will happen, but it will be worse having a "treaty", which will make it harder for honest people/doctors/agencies/hospitals to ignore the guidlines/orders from corrupt decision makers.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

But not in the forms we saw raise their ugly heads during COVID. Like a passport to enter a shop, get on a train etc.

That is irrelevant for your argument first because it is not being used today, which disproves them being an escalating thing that would never be reversed, and second because the passports have existed for decades without degrading human rights as you baselessly claim will be the case.

Yellow cards have been a physical document.

So what? without that document people are unable to enter certain countries, and being a physical document would still make it possible to be linked to other things, do you believe it would be difficult to also register the information written on them on any database? do you think a driver license is also the only place where the information included is registered? that is not an argument, it is at much an excuse based on not understanding how information is managed.

 And people who flat out refuse to get the passport at all could essentially be excluded from society. 

Because that is happening right now? this is easily disproved, which means your argument is still false.

WHO should be renamed Bill & Melinda Health Corp or be independent by cutting finance from any Medical Lobbying Group.

Your own links clearly disproves your criticism, explicitly saying the control of the global public health authority resides in the UN charter. Donors supporting specific projects is a completely different thing from directing the activities of the organization as a whole, much less the conclusions, recommendations, etc. Those are based on experts opinions based on openly available scientific data.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The first step must be to actually acknowledge those flaws, the real ones, rather than burying them and finding silly excuses. Also, those who lied must be held accountable.

What "feal flaws" are you talking about? for something to be acknowledge it would obviously require objective proof of it happening and being a problem, for example the initial way China reacted to the pandemic, or the way rich countries made it impossible for vaccines to be evenly distributed around the world.

Including conspiracy theories like the supposed dangers of vaccines or the artificial origin of SARS-CoV-2 (to mention examples of things you have tried to push in your comments) would make no sense.

 which will make it harder for honest people/doctors/agencies/hospitals to ignore the guidlines/orders from corrupt decision makers.

The problem is that you qualify as corrupt anybody that says something you don't want to agree with, while at the same time supporting debunked claims from people that have been found lying, conducting unethical human experimentation, defrauding, etc. Such as Raoult and the HCQ hoax. Preventing that from happening would be a huge benefit from a treaty, but people that refuse to accept scientific evidence would never accept this.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Because that is happening right now? this is easily disproved, which means your argument is still false.

Then disprove it.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

They will just formalise locking us up behind national borders with governments treating each tribe differently, even when that makes no geographical or medical sense.

The collateral damage of lockdowns to other health issues may eventually cost more lives than Covid. Then add in the damage to education and the economy, creating poverty, social isolation, mental health issues, and an increase in domestic violence and hate crime.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Then disprove it.

Again, your argument completely depends on you proving that currently people are being excluded from society for not having proof of vaccination, where is this happening? nowhere? that means your claim (that this would be an inevitable, irreversible consequence of having the passports) is disproved.

The collateral damage of lockdowns to other health issues may eventually cost more lives than Covid.

Which is why every country that tried to act congruent with science-based recommendations abandoned the lockdowns once much more cost effective measures like vaccinations were available. The hardest measures were never promoted as permanent or even desirable, they were always a way to prevent deaths until the actual sustainable measures became possible.

Part of the meaning of the treaties is not to let countries take unsustainable measures under the pretext of future pandemics as China is still doing but to pressure them to act accordingly to what the available evidence says are the best measures.

For example, before covid mask use by asymptomatic people in the general population had no evidence of efficacy preventing spreading, and some theoretical risks of increasing them (by making people transmit contaminated secretions by touch) but new evidence produced during the pandemic proved the masks were very useful at reducing transmission even by asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers, so it became the recommendation in general.

Lockdowns on the other hand were a "last resort" kind of measure that had clear evidence of efficacy, but also extremely high costs, so countries with the highest risk (or already deaths) use them, but the appearance of the variants and vaccines changed this, making the lockdowns much less effective and necessary, so the recommendation to replace them with vaccination and strengthening of the health services became the norm.

A stronger WHO would mean countries in general would have an easier time getting better measures (masks, vaccines) so the costlier ones (travel restrictions, lockdowns) unnecessary.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Step 1: force China to admit they created the virus, leaked it, lies about it and then committed atrocities against their own people to try and cover their mistakes

Step 2: fire the WHO leaders who ignored the warnings from Taiwan and pandered to China

Step 3: every government should commit to never forcing lockdowns again. They were proven ineffective and caused more harm than good.

Step 4: make vaccination optional for all professions. Apologize and rehire (with back pay) all those who were u fairly treated for making their own health choices.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

“Governments must resist any attempts to turn a pandemic treaty into another obscene profit opportunity for pharmaceutical companies."

Step 5: force all government officials to disclose their investments in companies that have profited from this facade.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Fortunately the WHO (and any other scientific institution and authority) do not need to pretend conspiracy theories without any evidence have any importance and can instead focus on problems and solutions based on actual scientific data. Seeing how many of those conspiracy theories are mutually exclusive or self contradictory listening to them would lead to nothing.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Again, your argument completely depends on you proving that currently people are being excluded from society for not having proof of vaccination, where is this happening? nowhere? that means your claim (that this would be an inevitable, irreversible consequence of having the passports) is disproved.

You didn't (and couldn't, of course) prove me wrong in any shape or form, you just deflected.

So you're completely ignoring all those people in Australia, Canada, NZ, France, Germany, Austria, etc. who had to take the jab and show proof, or they would lose their jobs, and wouldn't be able to travel, eat out and much more? You're completely ignoring the government tracking apps that were forcing people to check in even to a cafe and the like, and they were not allowed use those place without the vaccine passport app, which the unjabbed didn't have? You're ignoring the China-style crackdowns that the Canadian and Victorian governments ran against people who dared to challenge their assumed power? These haven't gone away, they're only on hold and will be back when the next good excuse pops up.

It must be embarrassing when all those people you sneer at as being conspiracy theorists keep highlighting your tenuous relationship with facts.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

You're completely ignoring all those people in Australia, Canada, NZ, France, Germany, Austria, etc. who had to take the jab and show proof, or they would lose their jobs, and wouldn't be able to travel, eat out and much more?

Why should we have a problem with those people who chose not to take the jab and therefore not be able to participate in society, which required the jab?

That's how society works. You sometimes have to make difficult choices, for the benefit of having a society. In the anti-vaxxers case, their choice was between a vax, or staying away from places that required the vax. They made that choice, I'm not sure why you think the rest of us should feel bad about them making that choice.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

StrangerlandToday  01:50 pm JST

You're completely ignoring all those people in Australia, Canada, NZ, France, Germany, Austria, etc. who had to take the jab and show proof, or they would lose their jobs, and wouldn't be able to travel, eat out and much more?

Why should we have a problem with those people who chose not to take the jab and therefore not be able to participate in society, which required the jab?

That's how society works. You sometimes have to make difficult choices, for the benefit of having a society. In the anti-vaxxers case, their choice was between a vax, or staying away from places that required the vax. They made that choice, I'm not sure why you think the rest of us should feel bad about them making that choice.

The problem is that the mandates were enforced based on false information, some of it unwittingly but most deliberately so. At the same time, the people who made those rules were frequently caught flouting them when they thought the camera were off, showing that they knew the problem was far less serous than they claimed. Therefore the premise of your argument just evaporated.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The problem is that the mandates were enforced based on false information

No.

s ome of it unwittingly but most deliberately so

No. Because nuance:

before covid mask use by asymptomatic people in the general population had no evidence of efficacy preventing spreading, and some theoretical risks of increasing them (by making people transmit contaminated secretions by touch) but new evidence produced during the pandemic proved the masks were very useful at reducing transmission even by asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers, so it became the recommendation in general.

Lockdowns on the other hand were a "last resort" kind of measure that had clear evidence of efficacy, but also extremely high costs, so countries with the highest risk (or already deaths) use them, but the appearance of the variants and vaccines changed this, making the lockdowns much less effective and necessary, so the recommendation to replace them with vaccination and strengthening of the health services became the norm.

 

At the same time, the people who made those rules were frequently caught flouting them when they thought the camera were off, showing that they knew the problem was far less serous than they claimed.

No, it showed that they were humans, and flawed. It never disproved the science.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The WHO completely messed up the response to covid so why would giving them even more power help?

You must resist this at the national level, pressure your government into staying out of it!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The WHO completely messed up the response to covid

No.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

This is the antithesis of a democracy. Unelected unaccountable dictators to decide how people are able to live. This circumvents the standard diplomatic alignments of sovereign nations. This is the very definition of the deep state.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

You didn't (and couldn't, of course) prove me wrong in any shape or form, you just deflected.

You proved yourself wrong when you became unable to prove the passports lead to permanent loss of all kinds of human rights as you claimed. Since they were a temporary measure, that was not generalized and have already been abandoned completely in many locations this is proof your argument is baseless. As long as you can't prove your claim then it can be ignored.

It must be embarrassing when all those people you sneer at as being conspiracy theorists keep highlighting your tenuous relationship with facts.

Since you have failed to prove any of your claims of escalating, permanent problems that still means they can be ignored, nothing embarrasing about disproving the validity of those claims.

The problem is that the mandates were enforced based on false information, some of it unwittingly but most deliberately so.

What false information? since they have demonstrated efficacy the only problem is how efficient they were, covid actually killed a lot of peoples, so this completely justifies their use in many places that had uncontrollable transmission before immunization was available.

Pretending the experts supposedly considered lockdowns as innocuous or desirable in absence of even worse problems because of the pandemic is the actual false information.

The WHO completely messed up the response to covid

According to which authority in the field? one thing is to act according to incomplete information, or not to be absolutely perfect in every way, another completely different thing is to "mess up" the response. Most of the problems that the WHO was unable to solve depended on the lack of cooperation of different countries or companies, which is what the treaty is addressing.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No, it showed that they were humans, and flawed. It never disproved the science.

The mandates were indeed based on false information. Even that Pfizer exec admitted a few weeks ago that they didn't know whether their jab slowed down the spread or not. It became obvious very quickly that it didn't but the rules weren't changed to reflect this fact. Moreover, court-enforced data releases that the FDA and Pfizer were fighting tooth and nail to resist showed that the jab was not safe and not particularly effective, especially for people who are not already elderly and/or have several existing comorbidities. Yet we still have governments trying to push boosters and vaccination of children down to 6 months old and pregnant women.

As for the lamer argument that these leaders are just human, this is pathetic. Those same leaders were consistently caught out ignoring the rules that they instigated by threat of fines and imprisonment. They were constantly seen to be putting on a mask just before a PR event, and removing it afterwards, knowing it's just theatre. It's not a matter of being caught once and that's it.

IF the WHO puts up a pandemic treaty that's adopted around the world, the same people will be in charge of enforcing it in their own countries, and you can be your last dollar that they'll enforce the same set of double standards next time around. Leopards, spots and all that. That's why this has to be resisted. These people don't care a whit about you.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The damages from covid will be multiplied if we accept this kind of lordship from the WHO. Scientific debate was smothered and the origins of the virus were obfuscated and denied. It was not a natural origin and it was known almost at the onset. But guess what, you don't get a vote in this. Even if you support this, your say actually doesn't matter. And when the tables turn and they come for something you cherish, you wont have a say then either. This is by design.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The mandates were indeed based on false information.

No.

Even that Pfizer exec admitted a few weeks ago that they didn't know whether their jab slowed down the spread or not. It became obvious very quickly that it didn't but the rules weren't changed to reflect this fact.

No.

Moreover, court-enforced data releases that the FDA and Pfizer were fighting tooth and nail to resist showed that the jab was not safe and not particularly effective, especially for people who are not already elderly and/or have several existing comorbidities.

No.

Look, I'm not sure why you think those of us who follow fact and science will be swayed by your conspiracy theories.

Yet we still have governments trying to push boosters and vaccination of children down to 6 months old and pregnant women.

Yes. Following science.

As for the lamer argument that these leaders are just human, this is pathetic. Those same leaders were consistently caught out ignoring the rules that they instigated by threat of fines and imprisonment. They were constantly seen to be putting on a mask just before a PR event, and removing it afterwards, knowing it's just theatre.

Yep, totally pathetic. Still doesn't disprove the science.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites