Commentary on the Pandemic Agreement

Obligations for more and more monitoring, control measures and reporting of critics.

This article does not claim to be exhaustive; it merely comments on the spirit of the treaty and points out possible restrictions of human rights that could arise in practice, even though the treaty repeatedly emphasizes that fundamental rights would be respected.

It is not only the disregard for and breach of promises of transparency that show that the authors of the pandemic agreement do not reconcile promises and practice.

The initially suggested withdrawal of state sovereignty was used as a “bomb”, the alleged  “defusing” of which is now exaggeratedly praised in order to be able to enforce the particular interests of pharmaceutical companies and other wire-pullers without resistance.

Article 4.1 stipulates that the pandemic agreement treaty shall apply in addition to and consistently with the IHR (International Health Regulations), which stipulate that the Director of the WHO may declare a pandemic on his own authority – with far-reaching consequences not only in relation to fundamental rights.
A pandemic emergency can already exist if several countries are affected (see Use of Terms in Article 1), for example in the case of a flu epidemic, but also in the case of swine flu (see “One Health”).

Furthermore, the signatories undertake to gradually strengthen surveillance measures, whereby it is not only a question of “coordinated multisectoral” (in other words synchronized) surveillance, but also of control measures.

The “One Health” concept in Article 5 commits to sustainable development not only in relation to people, so the WHO can also intervene in other areas whose development it considers “unsustainable”.

Article 8: The obligation to “strengthen” the regulatory authorities in such a way that the WHO has a say in the approval and “emergency” authorization of “pandemic-related health products” (which may have been developed „incidentally“ before the outbreak of a pandemic, but would never be approved under normal circumstances).

In Article 10, the signatories commit to promoting and supporting drug manufacturers – obviously this means that state money/tax money should be spent on this.

Distribution, global stockpiling of pharmaceutical products, and advertising of these products are to become mandatory. Taxpayers, of course, may also pay for this.

The contracting parties are urged to adopt the whole-of-government principle, so that different government departments can be placed under one authority – whether this makes it easier to eliminate control mechanisms or whether it makes attempts at bribery easier can only be assumed.

Article 16 no longer seeks to prevent objections by openly demanding censorship. Instead, the signatories commit to the following:
Through „investigations“ and reports (/denunciations?), the „factors“ that „hinder“ (/questioning by responsible citizens) adherence to public health are to be identified.
And even more: „Research“ is to be conducted into who could undermine „trust in science and public health institutions, authorities, and agencies.“
A demand for censorship would be comparatively harmless, because the current pandemic treaty obliges signatories to identify potential critics in advance.

From the experiences of the Corona period, we can conclude what science means in the WHO’s sense: blind faith in the statements of pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists, with gross disregard for scientific rigor, which by definition requires that all results be independently verifiable. The basic principles of scientific rigor – questioning, skepticism, and objectivity – have been grossly disregarded not only by the WHO, and since this misconduct has not been and is not acknowledged, as well as based on the tone of the treaty text, it can be assumed that this truly anti-scientific attitude is neither being addressed nor corrected, nor is it intended to be.

If potential deviants are to be identified and reported through surveillance and research, „monitoring and evaluation of policies“, that speaks volumes.

Developing countries (which cannot afford modern propaganda and surveillance apparatuses) receive technical support from the WHO (Article 16, Paragraph 3).
Here, too, the desire for Stasi-like powers shines through.
Whether Bill Gates (his foundation is one of the WHO’s main funders) supports these technical measures on Windows is a matter of speculation.

The contracting parties are instructed to network with each other to exchange the latest technologies and also to explore and tap into all funding opportunities, even those that expressly don’t yet exist. That seems to be the primary goal: more money and power for the owners of certain pharmaceutical companies.

Instead of an organization that was taken over by lobbyists and made a scapegoat of the wrongdoers, first being restored to its credibility through anti-corruption measures, audits, and reappraisals, it is given the lead in drafting binding international treaties.

Thanks to the considerable attention and worldwide efforts of responsible citizens, worse things in the treaty text, such as clear, global command authority for the WHO, open censorship measures, and other dictatorial efforts, were prevented. This shows how important civic engagement is and how successful it can be.

However, based on previous experience, it can be assumed that the WHO’s „recommendations“ will be followed even without explicitly established global authority – which, as is well known, can have restrictive and other fatal consequences for human rights. The above-mentioned obligations in the pandemic treaty must be fulfilled in addition and anyway in a legally binding manner.

The extent to which state sovereignty, democracy, and human rights are de facto restricted by the signing of the treaty urgently needs to be examined more closely – because once 60 states sign it, the treaty becomes binding under international law 30 days later. In its current form, this is probably not in the interest of the population.