| | | | |

Lets start looking at some contradictions in the latest draft of the Pandemic Treaty.

Share this article

This draft was named “pandemic agreement” to keep us guessing whether it is really the same document or something else

This is the official version, the latest draft of the pandemic treaty dated October 30, 2023 that both the developing nations and Pharma did not like. But is there much for we the people to like?

The term “infodemic” pops up in Article 1, where it is defined as too much information, false information or misleading information. Why is too much information a problem?

Equity is to be at the center of this document, at its heart. Let’s see how long that lasts.

Free, unhindered access to accurate information is also right at the start of the document, in its “Objective and scope” section.

But these mellifluous phrases didn’t last long. By the time we reach the Article 17, equity has morphed into choosing who will get first dibs on pandemic products. Everyone is not equal after all.

After promising free, full and fair access to information in earlier articles above, the WHO treaty yanks freedom of speech away. Everyone has to control infodemics (too much information or unwanted information) at the local, regional national and international level. That is some massive censorship project being contemplated…or perhaps already in place.

And here, the pandemic treaty promises transparency regarding government contracts for drugs and vaccines. Transparency! What a beautiful word. But guess what? It’s a charade. Because this very week, the European Parliament and the Canadian parliament voted to continue to hide the contracts for COVID vaccines from their citizens. Do you really think nations and the WHO will allow future pandemic vaccine contracts to be open to the public, when so many billions of dollars in gravy was involved, and no entity: not DOD, HHS or the so-called manufacturers wants to be held responsible for the resulting deaths and destruction?

Similar Posts

  • THE WHO’S PANDEMIC LAWMAKING

    Share this article

    Share this article NEGOTIATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN

  • Bitter harvest — 30 years of broken GMO promises

    Share this article

    Whatever happened to GM Golden Rice? And wasn’t GM salmon supposed to revolutionise aquaculture? Three decades after the first GMO crops were planted, Save Our Seeds, in collaboration with GMWatch, with contributions from Beyond GM, explores the fate of eight GMO promises once presented as game-changers. The conclusion: bold claims, dismal delivery.

  • 22 State Attorneys General Oppose the WHO Treaties

    Share this article

    Key reasons provided by the 22 AGs:

    First Reason:

    “Under proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty, however, the WHO’s Director-General would achieve the power to unilaterally declare a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) in one or more member nations. Such declarations can include perceived or potential emergencies other than pandemics, including climate change, immigration, gun violence, or even “emergencies” involving plants, animals, or ecosystems.”