Stop The Pandemic Treaty! Sign Now! Can Dissenters Like Us Get Into The WHO Treaty Negotiation Open To "ALL" Stakeholders, Or Does WHO Cherrypick The Invitees? Is Dissent Allowed?

WHO INB Invites "ALL" Relevant & Interested Stakeholders To Treaty Negotiation July 2024. Sounds Good, But Will They Honor Dissenter Stakeholders Rights To Participate? Can We Attend?

WHO Internal Oversight and the INB just wrote Interest of Justice back that we can participate in the Treaty negotiation in 3 days under the rules of document A/INB/8/5. Problem is the WHO is playing games as usual and that document gives two ways to participate, through INB or Member States, but they only offered one, the one we don’t qualify for.

We can’t go through Member States to attend the meeting in 3 days because HELLO, we got Costa Rica OUT OF THE TREATY - why would we ask them to help us get in when that would put Costa Rica right back in the mix we forced them out of last month? In our opinion, WHO INB needs to help us get into the Tenth INB meeting since INB first called us interested and relevant stakeholders from the very start of the process.

Time to stop the Treaty and stop the secret meetings with cherrypicked stakeholders. Sign below!

---

Follow our saga this week as we all get to see if WHO INB will once again respond to IOJ like they did about a week ago, but this time can we get INB to respond with a better offer to properly invite us to the treaty negotiation table.

Stop WHO Pandemic Agreement Treaty - Notice For 10th INB Meeting July 16-17 2024

Sign and share to tell the Member State Delegates and the WHO INB that the Pandemic Agreement is too risky, not necessary, and can never harmonize with many member states legislation regarding biomedical research laws with higher human rights protections.

Thanks for backing us up on our 2 years of ongoing disputes with the WHO treaty, because if the Treaty is adopted, and that is very likely to occur, it will not be good, and you will thank yourself that we are building this record and willing to try to sue to annul it. Step 1 is signing and sharing the following notice and demand, so the decision makers all get bombarded from now through the end of the Tenth INB meeting July 16,17, 2024.

Sign and share this far and wide right now! Stop the WHO Pandemic Treaty!

This is not your average grifter petition - this is part of serious efforts to legally prevent the WHO Pandemic Treaty and we will follow up with more demands for each INB meeting where the Treaty is being negotiated in order to stay proactive.

Click the above image to sign, or click directly to sign here: https://whowatch.org/stop-the-inb-pandemic-treaty-july-16-17-2024 Don’t let them get away with it!

Stop the Treaty diplomatically! Demand inclusion or demand no pandemic treaty. It will work! Stay the course! Conquer or die!.

Below is our letter to INB sent yesterday, after the WHO INB’s crappy offer on how we can be invited to attend the Treaty negotiations in 3 days!

We ask to sign and back us up that the treaty is void without dissenters like us involved!

---

Dear World Health Organization, Ethics Internal Oversight

July 12, 2024

Dear WHO ethics,

Thank you for your prompt response in this URGENT matter, considering the INB meets again with all "relevant and interested stakeholders" in 3 days.  

According to the document A/INB/8/5 there are two ways for "relevant and interested stakeholders" to be chosen:

1. “Relevant and Interested Stakeholders” are chosen by INB (which we were told at first that INB chose Interest of Justice as “relevant and interested stakeholders") and we attended hearings but INB never responded to many letters asking to be on Annex E.

2. We have a dispute with INB that requires a written response immediately to be heard, because INB needs to explain why they first chose us as “relevant and interested stakeholders”, and that the definition is "has important information to share", but then INB omitted contact, participation and collaboration with our organization. 

3. Is the WHO INB saying we are NOT “relevant and interested stakeholders” because INB made a decision they changed their mind and cut us out of the process by refusing to answer us about how to get on Annex E to participate?  

4. We asked to be on Annex E over and over with no response, but, according to the document A/INB/8/5 provided by ethics, it was INB who cherrypicked the list for Annex E, not Member States! We feel marginalized, excluded and unable to share our relevant information, entitling us to "extra assistance" from WHO to participate, because we are marginalized and vulnerable. The WHO's own documents state that we are entitled to this extra assistance from WHO to ensure our ability to participate.

Please see footnote from the document:

2. 1 The approach set forth in this document is without prejudice to the engagement by Member States with relevant stakeholders, and at the regional level through the regional committees. Coherence of the approach set forth in this document with United Nations processes will be pursued wherever possible.

5. The ethics department has responded that it is member states alone who choose the relevant stakeholders, but in reality the INB alone has the duty to continue to include the original chosen interested and relevant stakeholders such as our organization Interest of Justice. 

6. Thank you for the prompt response, however it is very clear that the WHO has omitted to respond to copious amounts of letters prior to this single response on this matter. It is regretful that the entire process has not benefitted from our input. Also, we feel injured by the non responses because it is very easy to write us back as the Ethics department has recently shown. We see you doing a much better job recently, and we appreciate your prompt responses.

7. We were excluded from the following modalities, and are asking to include us in some form of consultation to stakeholders available in the following modalities. Please inform us if the INB will make prompt accommodations to facilitate our participation and to honor their promise written in black and white text that "all interested and relevant stakeholders" can attend the meeting on July 16th and 17th of 2024 regarding negotiations for the pandemic accord. Our organization will happily accept any of the following modalities for our inclusion:

3 Previous intergovernmental working groups have engaged with one or more categories of stakeholders using various modalities, including: (1) inviting stakeholders to observe working group meetings; (2) setting aside time within one or more working group meeting(s) for stakeholders to intervene; (3) holding separate meetings or “hearings”, where stakeholders are invited to provide inputs (in some instances, such meetings were followed by closed sessions of the working group to discuss the inputs provided); and (4) extending the opportunity to participate in electronic consultations to stakeholders.

To conclude, Interest of Justice is requesting their spot to attend in any modality, July 17-17 2024, in the 10th meeting of the INB to negotiate the pandemic accord and we are informing you that the INB has specifically chosen us as an interested and relevant stakeholder, therefore we are entitled to your extra assistance as marginalized and vulnerable primary stakeholders who are being excluded. 

If the INB does not want to truly assist all stakeholders to have the ability to attend, and has revoked our status as "Interested and Relevant Stakeholders", meaning having "important and relevant information to share", please inform us of the reasons why we are not able to be included directly through the INB who originally chose us, and why the INB is now directing us to an "auxiliary" process which says that:

"The approach set forth in this document [INB chooses directly] is without prejudice to the engagement by Member States with relevant stakeholders, and at the regional level through the regional committees."

If we are no longer "interested and relevant" stakeholders we need to be informed in writing immediately and the reasons why.

With kind regards and sincere appreciation at the new ethics oversight that has been much more responsive,

Interest of Justice

contact@interestofjustice.org

A/INB/9/3
Revised draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement

---