WHO Pandemic Treaty Looms On Track With Less Than 20 Articles Left To Agree. Dangerous Discussions Not Kneecapped! WAKE UP - WHO is winning. WHO Agreements & New Norms For All!

IHR Amendments were SADLY adopted June 1 in WHA77 and the Treaty rages on set to agree by end of year or next WHA78. WHO's most powerful Member States are really wanting the damn treaty, wake up!

Jul 22, 2024

The INB 11 concluded last week and the pandemic treaty is NOT kneecapped!

FYI: Almost all countries except Costa Rica are all agreeing to reach a consensus by the end of the year in December, which is only five months (this is unlikely BUT possible) or at the latest in WHA78 next May 2025, in around 10 1/2 months….

It’s on track for WHA78 in our opinion, which is plenty of time for WHO and Member States to iron out the bugs, AGREE and screw us all over.

We are SO thankful we got this extra time and it was not adopted June 1, because its barely just enough time to stop the Treaty if we act TOGETHER now.

Interest of Justice is very proud for helping to facilitate and achieve Costa Rica’s historical decision to WITHDRAW from the TREATY. The VP of Costa Rica actually QUOTED IoJ’s diplomatic letter in WHA77 when she withdrew from consensus to continue the Treaty (see video)

IOJ directly saved Costa Rica using diplomacy, written truths with laws and duties, but NOT activism. We want to help you and all the other Member States break free of the treaty like Costa Rica was able to withdraw with our help!

Support our work to stop WHO

Let’s do this! We proved it can be done and States can withdraw, but with HEAVY WORK on our side.

The treaty is still on track for consensus, even if there are still the old issues lingering.

Let’s just get real. No invested negotiator we know of is giving up their precious pandemic treaty in WHO, nor are the rich Member States with the bulk of influence and power walking away without their pandemic product peddler deals, which the Treaty will secure for them.

Updates from INB 10 July 16, 17, 2024:

The INB decided that September 3, 4 is the next informal meeting which will include experts informally for the first and last time. The next informal meeting is kind of a big deal.
Which experts are allowed is HEAVILY in debate, with some Member States saying they want non state actors and non FENSA experts (FENSA covers the WHO rules for engagement with non state actors). We are NON FENSA NSA’s and must be included!
There is a concept called “legal scrubbing” on the table which China and a few others opposed, but most liked, which is to bring in outside legal experts and review WHO’s legal conclusions… we think it’s a GREAT and critical idea!
Canada was a bad ass and called out WHO for bad governance. For some reason Canada becomes a non tyrant and is always saying really great stuff in the WHO meetings and standing up for us stakeholders that aren’t included much. The Canadian delegate is awesome!
Iran was a bad ass and called the INB “irrational” for only giving relevant stakeholders 30 minutes - we agree.
UK and others appeared perturbed and explained there should have been an extra day on September 2 because DUH, 2 days is insufficient, INB could care less.
Multiple delegates said it was inequitable because WHO INB double scheduled and they were not able to be in both WHO scheduled meetings at the same time. WHO agreed it is inequitable but WHO refused to change dates to include all Member States in all meetings, showing inflexibility to include all parties.
There was actually a lot, lot more and we are almost done editing the videos with the full highlights because there are so many newsworthy statements and points that NO ONE else is publishing for you all, but for now please know the treaty is not kneecapped in any way shape or form, it appears to be on track and we need to raise hell to discredit the process and text every INB meeting, as we have done since they first met.

Sign our latest petition to WHO INB, Governing Board and HHS OGA (US):

Tell WHO DG Tedros no to the Pandemic Treaty!

Send this open letter to Tedros, Governing Board, INB and US Health and Human Services Office of Global Affairs:

Contents of the demand we ask you to sign and share:

Greetings WHO INB, DG Tedros Adhanom, Governing Bodies, HHS OGA, Esteemed Delegates,
This is a demand to stop the treaty negotiations which are currently invalid for INB failing to ensure proper inclusion of ALL relevant stakeholders and Member States in the design, approval and implementation of the pandemic agreement. INB has not made the discussions open, transparent and clear, leading to well deserved mistrust and an inherently contentious and harmful process.
The INB has scheduled an irrational measly 30 minutes to hear from what they say includes "all relevant stakeholders". This little amount of time is obviously insufficient, therefore the INB should make things right and quickly do their duty to facilitate meaningful participation. 30 minutes to hear from us all is absolutely unacceptable and obviously discredits the entire pandemic treaty making process as being rushed through, inequitable, not inclusive and unsound. Please make digital open participation dates.
As noted by Costa Rica, the process itself is causing harm on an international and national level due to the contentious nature and lack of proper information. Lack of participation and inclusion of the whole of society and CSO's in civil society, who feel excluded, has naturally led to wide distrust.
It is worth mentioning that the process of the INB making the informal meeting Sept 3, 4 on the same day as other formal obligations will cut out smaller delegations who have only one Delegate from their ability to benefit from the experts and relevant stakeholders information, a critical component of creating a fair, just and equitable treaty. The INB noted this problem, apologized and even agreed the process is inequitable, but the INB was inexplicably firm and insisted there is "no other way" to schedule. That stance is in itself inflexible and not inclusive of all Member States and all experts, or of the platforms of digital diplomacy now available, which is regretful and casts shadows upon the legitimacy and openness of the process of creating the Pandemic Treaty.
At INB 10 some Member States expressed confusion on how they would properly recommend experts and relevant stakeholders for the next invite to INB 11. CSO's are not made aware of how to request inclusion by the INB or Member States, leading to very limited or no access for all relevant stakeholders to be included.
Multiple Member States have expressed a desire to include non FENSA NSA experts in the informal coming in September and that must be honored, because limiting experts to FENSA creates a situation of WHO exercising a monopoly over the source of science, a problem that would violate Member States rights to determine their own health policy, which undoubtably includes the right to decide the countries own source of science outside FENSA. If all stakeholders are included as INB promised, then that must include non FENSA experts.
I agree that there should absolutely be a robust and transparent WHO 'legal scrubbing' to serve as a second and third opinion oversight of the current WHO legal opinion on the Treaty. "Legal Scrubbing" by many non FENSA diverse experts is a critical must have, otherwise it will appear the WHO is monopolizing legal oversight of the treaty.
Oversight is a responsibility of Member States and "legal scrubbing" by a wide range of legal stakeholders and diverse backgrounds in ethics, human rights, law and research standards is critical. This should be done through online public access digital portals with full transparency and a debate that lasts at minimum one or two full days on this topic.
I request all "legal scrubbing" to include an open ethics and open science integrity dialogue by digital format as mentioned above. I am very concerned about political influence and science integrity in this process, which is a widespread sentiment requiring much, much more transparency and open processes from INB. By using digital means to include more opinions the INB and Member States can ensure their obligations to Open Government Partnership and Open Science. While this will indeed take longer because there will be a need to review the inputs received, it will ensure a diverse and wider range of legal opinions.
More opinions on a globally binding agreement are a necessity, especially considering the instrument is rooted in global public health law, a VERY highly specialized body of law which affects substantive rights and legal norms, if adopted. The extra efforts are worth it because the agreement as written is full of legal contradictions, issues, nullities, and may conflict with many Member States research standard laws.
The INB did a review on the input from the first two WHO Pandemic Agreement hearings and noted that 2 stakeholders, including Interest of Justice requested the standards of Siracusa Principles should be articulated in the treaty and met, but that key issue has never been addressed. Unless the treaty reifies and strengthens Siracusa Principles, and outlines peoples rights to challenge WHO and Member States declarations of PHEIC, pandemic emergency and measures, it may end up creating an imbalance of power in the favor of public private partnerships seeking to profit off pandemic product peddling.
Further rushing of this involved process will cause a void treaty agreement that is legally impermissible and further create division and lack of trust in WHO, as well as in Member States involved in the process.
Once again, this is a demand to stop the treaty negotiations which are currently invalid for INB failing to ensure proper inclusion of ALL relevant stakeholders.
Thank you,