Important points regarding the WHO's Proposed Pandemic Treaty and major changes to the International Health Regulations

Some of my suggestions to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for its hearing tomorrow

The Committee roster can be found here.

Questions could profitably be asked about the following:

1.  The WHO is not an honest broker. 

• a.  Its Director-General has repeatedly lied about the WHO's 2 proposed treaties:  the pandemic treaty/agreement, and International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments, claiming they do not seize sovereignty, when there is no doubt they do precisely that.  See Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States' Sovereignty? by David Bell, MD, PhD and attorney Thi Thuy Van Dinh, PhD.

• b.  The WHO appears to have deceived the public about whether the amendments "approved" in May 2022 followed the legally required procedure of a full WHA vote. Twelve members of the European Parliament wrote to the WHO on November 28, 2023 asking for evidence that the WHO actually conducted a vote of the entire World Health Assembly to pass several new amendments in May 2022, with a 48 hour deadline.  The WHO did not respond, and the twelve European parliament members declared the May 2022 amendments null and void last week.

• c.  The WHO's principal legal office, Steven Solomon, stated in early October that the IHR working group did not have to follow the required procedure (found in the existing 2005 version of the International Health Regulations) to make public the draft of new proposed amendments 4 months in advance of a vote.  Thus, we may not see the new amendments until after the WHO members have voted on them.  https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-who-will-ignore-its-own-rules

2.  The WHO's proposed treaties are unconstitutional

• a.  They demand that nations perform surveillance of their citizens' social media footprints and censor them to prevent 'infodemics' (too much information, according to the WHO's definition), misinformation and disinformation, surveil

• b.  They say that nations should give up the intellectual property rights of their citizens.

• c.  There is no due process for the declaring or ending of public health emergencies of international concern, for which no standards exist.

3.  In the Oct. 30 draft of the treaty, A new WHO Secretariat and Conference of Parties for pandemics are to be established in the future and will make their own rules.  Thus, agreeing to this means providing a blank check to the WHO to do whatever it wants at some later date.

4.  The 2 proposed treaties ignore existing international law prohibiting the proliferation of biological warfare agents (the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 2004 Security Council Memorandum 1540) and demand that nations search out new agents (a.k.a. "potential pandemic pathogens") and share them with the WHO, which will "share them globally."  The WHO has already established a BioHub for this purpose and a Pathogen Access and Benefits System.

5.  The proposed treaty and amendments also demand that nations perform 2 additional forms of surveillance of their citizens:  microbiological surveillance of their populations, animals and ecosystems for pathogens, and surveillance and sharing of medical and hospital records, both of which violate privacy protections.

6.  The proposed amendments remove the guarantee of "Human rights, dignity and freedom of persons" that are found in the current international health regulations.

7.  The two proposed treaties are both binding, whereas the earlier IHR were recommendations only, apart from minor requirements for notification of certain outbreaks to the WHO.  The two proposed documents would give the WHO and particularly its Director-General vast authority to manage healthcare globally.  The current Director-General is not a medical practitioner and instead has a PhD in Community Health.

8.  The WHO lacks the personnel and expertise to manage international pandemics and other health concerns.  Any developed nation has within it much more capacity to understand and manage medical events within its borders, and likely international events as well.

9.  The proposed treaty calls for rapidly produced vaccines and for nations to implement domestic legislation to permit the use of unlicensed medical products without manufacturer liability, instead "managing" the liability issues using existing models, such as the US' Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which has so far compensated 8 Americans for injuries related to EUA COVID products (primarily vaccines) from the 12,358 claims filed.  https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data

10.  It is apparent that in the process of developing the “Pandemic Accord” and amendments to the IHR, WHO/WHA positioned itself in a combined law-making/executive/expert/censorship role, which is a well-known path to usurpation of unrestrained power. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the proposed Amendments grant expressly such power to the WHO.

11.  The WHO receives 85% of its funding from voluntary contributions, and only 15% from dues paid by its 194 member nations.  Most of the voluntary contributions are earmarked for special projects that the WHO carries out.  When President Trump withheld US funding in 2020, Bill Gates became the WHO's top funder.  The (unelected) WHO serves many private masters, yet seeks to govern the world's population.

12.  Virtually every recommendation the WHO made for managing the COVID pandemic was counterproductive.  Why would we give the WHO the power to enforce the same bad advice on the US and world?

Meryl Nass, MD

December 11, 2023