Yesterday in Westminster Hall, MPs debated the Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement. Over 150,000 signed the petition to “not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum”. They don’t want the Government to commit to signing an international treaty unless it is approved through a public referendum.
Steve Brine MP said he was “puzzled by the debate”. We are too.
So, what is the Treaty about, and should we be concerned?
The WHO wants member states to negotiate a new international instrument to advance collective action for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
In March 2021, world leaders, including Boris Johnson, announced the need for a treaty to enhance international pandemic cooperation. In October, a WHO working group published a ‘zero draft’ report for consideration by the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO’s decision-making body. As a result, the WHA convened a second special session in December, where it established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate the instrument with a view to its adoption under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. Article 19 of the WHO’S Constitution gives the WHA the authority to adopt conventions or agreements on any matter within WHO’s competence.
Does the U.K. support the treaty? Well, Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was a signatory. In May 2022, the Government responded to the petition, stating it supported “a new legally-binding instrument.”
Government support that is pledged despite not knowing the substance of what is being proposed: the Government supports a new treaty “as part of a cooperative and comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”.
The zero draft for consideration was reported at the fourth INB meeting – known as the WHO CA+. The aim of the CA+ is “a world where pandemics are effectively controlled”. Have we learnt anything about respiratory agents?
One of the aims of the CA+ is confusing: it states it wants to “achieve universal health coverage”. But, the concept of universal health coverage is based on the 1948 WHO Constitution, which declares health a fundamental human right and commits to ensuring the highest attainable level of health for all – therefore, why should universal coverage be reserved for pandemics?
One of the primary reasons underpinning the treaty is the “recognition of the catastrophic failure of the international community to show solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic”. There’s no need then for vital reflection on how we got it so wrong – it’s not just more of the same; this treaty sets out it will be much more.
Currently, the negotiating team is looking into the definition, means and procedure for declaring a pandemic, what this means in practice, how to finance pandemic preparedness and response initiatives and the setting up of a new Governing Body for overseeing the treaty.
It’s not all bad news: manufacturers are well catered for. Article 7(3a) states:
During inter-pandemic times all parties will coordinate, collaborate, facilitate and incentivise manufacturers of pandemic-related products to transfer relevant technology and know-how to capable manufacturer(s) (as defined below) on mutually agreed terms, including through technology transfer hubs and product development partnerships, and to address the needs to develop new pandemic-related products in a short time frame.
The petition asks for a referendum to decide whether the treaty will proceed. This isn’t going to happen – once the political will is in place, there’s little to stop the progress unless a block of countries at the WHA objects.
The issues that concern us are the definition, the costs and the actors.
We have previously noted the problems with defining a pandemic, and issues with the elusive definition of pandemic influenza have been pointed out as far back as 2011 when the need for any impact on morbidity and mortality was removed. Instead, all you needed was the worldwide spread of a new disease “against which the population has no immunity”.
There are also no widely accepted definitions for the end of the pandemic – who knows when this one will end?
As for the costs: Article 19(1c) of the draft report states:
Commit to prioritise and increase or maintain, including through greater collaboration between the health, finance and private sectors, as appropriate, domestic funding by allocating in its annual budgets not lower than 5% of its current health expenditure to pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery, notably for improving and sustaining relevant capacities and working to achieve universal health coverage. (emphasis added)
Has anyone considered the cost? Five per cent is roughly £7.5 billion for England and Wales – about half the General Practice budget gone. Any answers on what the XX% of GDP referred to below might add up to are much appreciated.
Commit to allocate, in accordance with its respective capacities, XX% of its gross domestic product for international cooperation and assistance on pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery, particularly for developing countries, including through international organisations and existing and new mechanisms.
As for the actors in all this, there will be many. Global politics is an excellent distractor for domestic problems; the WHO Global Pandemic Supply Chain and Logistics Network will ensure numerous opportunities for industry, and academia will gladly go along with an agenda that promises $XXX funding opportunities. At the centre will be the WHO – primarily a political organisation; it is essential that the past mistakes of the influenza narrative are not repeated.
In 2010, key scientists advising the WHO on pandemic planning had done paid work for industry that stood to gain from the guidance they authored. Deborah Cohen’s investigation showed that key experts contributing to the plan were conflicted. As a result, the definition of a pandemic was altered, billions of pounds of antivirals were stockpiled, and the WHO’s warning of two billion influenza H1N1 cases never materialised.
There’s been a lot (rightly) made about this treaty ceding power to an unelected body.
The treaty will be a legally binding instrument. There may be some downplaying of this when folk realise the implications. However, if a party wants to leave, it can do so at any time within two years from the date the WHO CA+ entered into force. But we will have to give one year’s notice (it’s unclear what happens after two years).
And as if you don’t need to be any more concerned, any party may propose amendments to the WHO CA+ that can be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting at the session.
The INB will submit the treaty for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024. As Esther McVey said, we need “robust debate and an open review” of the plans.
Once the treaty is in force – to make it relevant and the political effort worthwhile – all you’ll need is another pandemic.
We do not need to spell out the catastrophic failures of the last three years. For now, just think that the same people are in charge and as our series on the UKHSA ‘evidence base’ for mask mandates shows, they do not care what any of us think.
This is not a U.K. problem, and we urge our non-U.K. readers to spread the word and, if they agree, our grave concerns.
We’ll be watching; we’ll keep you posted and keep writing. Somebody somewhere will take notice, perhaps.
Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack blog, Trust The Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Cross-bows next on the banning list.
I wonder why?
Probably based on the false perception that it is a superior weapon compared to the contents of a tool box, kitchen drawer or a vehicle (particularly an incendiary EV). Ever heard of a mass-crossbow shooting?
I’ve seen the documentary about the repeater crossbows.
Another good video to go along with the Andrew Percy one above is this 5min clip of Peter Whittle on GBN yesterday, talking about Islamism and where the continuous appeasement of Muslims has got us to today;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrpYdj3iRj0&t=297s&ab_channel=TheNewCultureForum
We know that the fear of authorities being labelled as ”Islamophobic” for years has caused huge amounts of suffering, crimes to go unpunished and for these ‘people’ to have gained a lot of power and influence within society as a result, but when we look at the origins of the nonsensical word, ‘Islamophobic’, you can see that this is entirely the point. Would the likes of Muslims Assad and Hussein, for instance, be correctly labelled Islamophobic, or is this just another slur, such as the word ”racist” which only applies to white people, everybody else getting a free pass and protected status within society? Have our authorities in the West already achieved ”dhimmi” status due to their constant appeasement of Muslims over the years, consequently is that what their policies and ‘two-tier’ policing, for example, have made us, the citizens, as a result? If so then it would seem the Muslim Brotherhood have their wish and Sharia already has a foot in the door and there is much evidence all across Europe to support this.
”Given the fact that the term ‘Islamophobia’ was almost certainly invented by the Muslim Brotherhood as an ideological weapon to silence critics, it begs the question of whether we want to continue using their language. While understanding the origins of the phrase is very instructive, it does not change the conceptual problems with the term itself. The main problem is that it fails to distinguish between prejudice and discrimination against Muslims as people, prejudice against Islam, and informed criticism of Islam or Islamism as a set of ideas and practices. Freedom of speech and thought allows anyone to criticise an ideology, but not to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. A second problem is that ‘Islamophobia’ is often defined as a form of racism directed toward Muslims.
The issue here is that Muslims are not a racial group, and that people of all ethnicities can be Muslims. A third problem, which was recognised by the editor of the Runnymede report on Islamophobia in 1997, is that the suffix ‘phobia’ implies a delusional or irrational fear that is analogous to a mental illness. Attacking the person in this way, rather than their argument, is a classic ‘ad hominem’ (attacking the person) fallacy. A fourth problem is that we rarely use these phobia terms to protect any other religion. We practically never describe atheists who make jokes about Christianity as ‘Christophobics,’ or describe critics of mindfulnessmeditation as ‘Buddhophobics.’ Both terms have almost never been searched on Google in the past 15 years. One potential solution to these conceptual problems, which was put forward by the UK think-tank Policy Exchange, is to describe the problem as “bias against Muslims,” which acknowledges the existence of real bias against people, while distinguishing it from informed criticism of an ideology. May the debate continue.”
https://europeanacademyofreligionandsociety.com/news/islamophobia-the-origins-of-a-confusing-concept/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/22/pro-lockdown-mps-cant-deny-the-huge-costs-of-their-actions/
IIRC, the Tories were – and unfortunately, currently remain – ‘in power’ when the atrocious lockdowns were initiated, ably assisted by their BFF sycophants and partners-in-crime on the opposite benches. As such, the Tories have to take the ultimate responsibility for the disastrous impact of their mismanagement.
“Tories have to take the ultimate responsibility for the disastrous impact of their mismanagement.”
Sadly ellie-em there was no mismanagement. Every action was planned and coordinated.
I agree the Conservatives should be punished for the lockdowns and quite a few other things (have an upvote). However, we must also remember that the Coronavirus Act 2000 which enabled so much of the stupidity was passed without division in the Commons and Lords (ie no Member of either House objected) and it had immediate Consent from the Scottish parliament.
A plague on both your Houses.
Absolutely, every one of the self-serving shysters voted for the Act.
Never forgive, never forget.
Ooh I don’t know, this is a tough one. Stay or deport the cultural enricher? I don’t think our Geert is afraid of a ridiculous made-up word if it means highlighting the real and present danger these people pose to citizens;
”Dutch politician Geert Wilders has demanded the deportation of an asylum seeker currently standing trial for sexually assaulting four 11-year-old girls at a swimming pool resort in the Netherlands.
A total of 10 young girls and women filed complaints against the 29-year-old Syrian asylum seeker last year after he allegedly targeted and groped female visitors of the Center Parcs resort in Zandvoort.
Hart van Nederland reported how some of the girls had their buttocks groped by the man, while others claimed the migrant had clamped his legs around their waists and pressed his genitals against their hips.
Police attended the facility at the time of the alleged offenses and a full investigation was conducted with CCTV footage showing the man directly heading toward young girls in the swimming pool several times.
The Syrian national, who is still awaiting an asylum decision and fears the court proceedings will impact his application, told the court through an interpreter that he denies the allegations and claims to be homosexual and thus not attracted to women.
His defense counsel has argued there is insufficient evidence for a conviction, and claimed his client had no intention of touching children in an inappropriate manner and any interaction with the minors was not sexually motivated.
He reminded the court that a criminal conviction would likely result in a refusal by the Dutch authorities to grant his client asylum which would have far-reaching consequences for both the defendant and his wife and daughter who are currently residing in Turkey and awaiting the green light to travel to the Netherlands under family reunification laws.”
https://rmx.news/netherlands/netherlands-wilders-calls-for-immediate-deportation-of-syrian-asylum-seeker-accused-of-groping-4-small-girls-in-dutch-swimming-pool-resort/
Surely in any decent legal system the consequences of a possible guilty verdict are not relevant to the case. Circumstances could obviously affect sentencing if someone is found guilty – but not so much if they’re found to be a kiddie fiddler. This guy’s defence counsel should have been told off good and proper by the court.
The accused now claims to be homosexual. Presumably not exclusively so, as he wants his wife and child to join him. Perhaps the child was the result of a grudge pregnancy (someone had it in for him)? Anyhow, either way he will be reunited with his wife and child soon – perhaps in Turkey.
The Countryside Is Not Racist – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
Speaking of sheep and being savaged…
Dog owners warned after sheep ‘attacks’ in North Wales | UK News | Sky News
Two XL bully dogs shot dead after killing 22 pregnant sheep – as owner fined | UK News | Sky News
—Despite this attack costing the farmer £14,000, Judge Cohen only fined the dog owner £900. Part of the War on Farmers.
“Even if a dog doesn’t make physical contact, the distress of the chase can also cause sheep to die, miscarry and separate lambs from their mothers. Farm animals are also being chased into danger – drowning in rivers, falling from cliffs and getting their necks trapped in fencing.”
Rebecca Davidson, rural affairs specialist, NFU Mutual
Wow! I had no idea sheep were so dangerous… Or have I missed something?
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
Seriously: WTF? 22 sheep in lamb killed by dogs. Owner of dogs fined only £900? £40.90 each. £10 a leg.
The £14,000 loss to the farm looks like the deadweight price of 4 lambs according to this site. Typically two lambs per ewe per season. So this season’s loss of lambs and next.
You’re right that the headlines could be misconstrued
. Thanks for the info about deadweight prices. The important point is that dogs on leads are not necessarily controlled by their owners, and still manage to attack, as in the case of the Cornish parents who took their three kids for a family bike ride along a path. A dog owner allowed his vicious dog on a lead to first attack the 7-year-old boy, knocking him off his bike and biting him through his clothing. Then the dog owner proceeded to calmly continue along the path and allow his vicious dog to attack the boy’s 5-year-old brother, also biting him in the leg. Though the children’s father managed to get the dog owner’s name and address, the arrogant owner said it wasn’t his fault that his dog didn’t like kids on bikes!
The fact is that neither humans nor most animals have any defence against dog attacks. Horses get their skin torn off even by small dogs leaping up to bite them. Here in the UK, people are not allowed to carry any defence against dog attacks, or human attacks. The only thing that will protect people, posties, livestock and wildlife is muzzling all dogs in public, including public transport, as is the law in countries like Austria. And prison terms for anyone whose dog attacks and injures a human or domestic animal.
Royal Mail reports surge in dog attacks on postal workers | ITV News
Certainly not two Bully XLs.
“Police stood by as ‘From the river to the sea’ projected onto Parliament, says MP”
‘Speech people hate’ not ‘hate speech’.
Speech some people hate. It’s been used by Jews and Israelis when it suits their own ends. I suspect a vast number of people are indifferent or hadn’t been aware of it prior to late 2023.
If Parliament is in no position to tell Israel where to operate, then they are in no position to allow military and any other support of the Israeli campaign.
Brief comment by Doctors Without Borders on the situation in Gaza: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4JvprvzDgU
Some comprehensive statements at the ICJ public hearing, China and UAE in particular. Here is Saudi Arabia’s representative, His Excellency Ziad Al-Atiyah giving a blistering critique of Israel’s position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1USi85c1M
China is currently persecuting a million Moslem Uihgurs. Strange there is not the same concern about that.
Whataboutery is the most favoured diversionary tactic of the Zionist supporters, isn’t it?
It is indicative of the double standards of those who only seem to protest about the activities of Jews in this case trying to recover the hostages and prevent a repeat of the abhorrent attacks and by comparison ignore Moslems killing Moslems in much greater numbers such as when Saddam slaughtered around 100,000 Kurds or Assad (father of the present president) launched nerve gas attacks killing between 20,000 and 40,000 of his own citizens; or the current civil wars going on in Yemen, Syria and Sudan where ell over a million have been killed.
“Jews in this case trying to recover the hostages and”
By killing them, refusing to negotiate and carpet bombing everything?
”prevent a repeat of the abhorrent attacks “
You mean the ones they knew were coming but let happen and then lied about the circumstances and are using the entire day as cover for ethnic cleansing and murdering tens of thousands.
Yeah I’m being so unfair to Jews.
Assad did not do that. The Globalists hate President Assad and his father for driving the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorists out of Syria, and for protecting Syrian Christians against Muslim and Kurdish attacks.
Unfortunately, the Brotherhood just set up new headquarters in London.
Don’t forget to mention the UAE and SA’s abuses of human rights. Right up there with the UK in its treatment of Assange, or supplying weapons to a country being investigated for genocide and another bombing its own civilians in Donetsk, eh?
China just went sub nuclear by stating that Palestinians have (oh my Lord) the right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression.
Ahh wow!
https://youtu.be/LaCrM0L3YBk?si=HCkV-IR_oFbZfs6W
and from Middle East Eye
Representatives of 52 countries are addressing the ICJ on Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian land.
Beijing’s envoy said there were “various people (who) freed themselves from colonial rule” and they could use “all available means, including armed struggle”.
He described the Palestinian use of armed resistance as legitimate and not an act of terrorism.
In his speech, Jun criticized Israeli policies, characterizing them as “oppression that has severely undermined and impeded the exercises and full realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination”.
The ICJ’s public hearings, which will be held until February 26, come after a UN General Assembly resolution requesting an ICJ advisory opinion.
The number of states participating in the oral proceedings is the highest of any case since the ICJ’s establishment in 1945 and is separate to the more publicized genocide case brought by South Africa. A panel of 15 judges are expected to take about six months to deliberate before issuing an advisory opinion.
Yep, saw that. It was a toss up between posting the China statement or the SA one, I thought the latter was more representative of the simmering rage the rest of the world appear to be feeling at this point!
AnsarAllah hit another British ship: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/another-uk-ship-fire-yemen-sea-becomes-littered-disabled-tankers
“Ninety-nine million patient records and they concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks!? We respectfully disagree”
Dr James Lyons-Weiler points out a few more salient facts about this corrupt study:
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/on-the-99m-person-study-allegedly?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
“US lands on the moon for the first time
in 50 years”https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2024/02/23/us-lands-on-moon-for-first-time-in-more-than-50-years/
Its simple to solve this problem!
Israel, Palistine, Russia and Australia are not in Europe! So ban the the lot, sorted!
https://www.newstalk.com/news/inconceivable-for-israel-to-take-part-in-eurovision-as-ebu-reviews-song-1645044
““I just think if we were to sit down on the night and Israel was to go on, as if nothing is happening, and perform a song that it would be a very, very low point in the history of Eurovision.”
And that is saying something after the last couple of years.
They could always get those kids on who were singing for genocide a few months back, really tug at the heartstrings (the ones not spattered about the Gazan rubble, that is). That would be a real vote winner, don’t you think?
I mean if you dropped the subtitles it would win Dix points down the line, cute little kids sweetly singing, what could go wrong?
Not seen anything on the ever declining quality of “News Round-U” articles on
Assange extradition
the further slaughter of civilians by US/UK based pariah state Israel,
the French legislation threatening 15 years in jail for criticising MRNA gene altering shots.
the fierce questioning of Richy Thelema Sunak on GB news
Toby you had better pay more attention to the daily list of Specter/Telegraph/Spiked/Guido Fawkes hasbara on the DS. It’s not useful or challenging to TPTB.
I’ve got the popcorn ready for the sh*tfest that will erupt if Shamima Begum wins her appeal.
Red meat indeed.
Great news, she lost. Cheered me up no end.
That’s nice for you
I had no emotional reaction myself, though it might have been more entertaining if she’d won and we’d been treated to a spate of frothing articles in Spiked and The Telegraph. Next time, maybe. I’ll have to be content with Cruella for now 
Russel Brand, in usual style covers the GB news clip and the French legislation here:
https://youtu.be/u0Ha4mv2Pu4?si=fC6uCqzn5EmRb6Nz
Perhaps it should be renamed ‘MSM News Round-Up’, for clarity. It would certainly be more accurate.
Bingo
I joined this site because I valued this section. It instantly went downhill. I apologise for putting a hex on it, and I promise not to renew my subscription.
I’d prefer it if you stayed on to comment BTL. But I don’t blame you a bit.
Fair enough.My apologies.
No apologies! I meant it as a hope you would not leave! There are a minority here it seems that are consistently sceptical on every issue.
I think you are one of those. It would be sad to see another one go.
A highly enjoyable video of Killary Clinton getting filibustered for being a war criminal at a “Women’s Cimema for Peace” event (drips in irony).
https://youtu.be/YiSQDhUdvds?si=hOhHGcvHdMpkGQeZ
And Jimmy Dore discussing her murder victim Seth Rich’s coverup…FBI won’t release his laptop information for 66 years…
https://youtu.be/XThp3Rx4HyM?si=rvb6kuLHoTUfwQFG
Gideon Levy, Haaretz:
“Eine Welt, die entschlossen ist, eine Lösung zu finden, muss Israel vor eine klare Wahl stellen: Sanktionen oder ein Ende der Besatzung, Gebiete oder Waffen, Siedlungen oder internationale Unterstützung, ein demokratischer Staat oder ein jüdischer Staat, Apartheid oder ein Ende des Zionismus.”
https://globalbridge.ch/israel-muss-zum-frieden-gezwungen-werden/
Guilt&Responsibility:
The case of Germany and Israel
“There is a thing to say about a nation that erroneously understands guilt as an inherited condition from which it cannot escape and on which it must act more or less indefinitely. Such a nation is trapped in the past—or has been so trapped, or let itself be trapped, or intentionally trapped itself. This opens us to a recognition we must not miss:”
https://www.unz.com/article/guilt-and-responsibility/
Applicable to most other colonial&co history and relationships between nations and people.
Glenn Greenwald gave very thoughtful coverage to these issues too recently on the back of Israel’s criticism of Brazil, asking the questions – ‘who owns the memory of Nazism in WW2’ and ‘is there anyone with the legitimacy to dictate how the holocaust can be discussed [and] by whom’ amongst others. (Starts around 8m30)
https://rumble.com/v4endcr-system-update-live-show-231.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=3
“Post Office boss ‘should have faced questions’ over working for Church, says Justin Welby”
More importantly, Billionaire Sunak should be facing questions now over helping his Billionaire father-in-law, one of the world’s richest men, avoid losing £millions in compensation pay-outs to the Postmasters. Is Billionaire Sunak delaying the compensation to give his Billionaire father-in-law time to offload his investments before compensation is paid?
“Sunak’s in-laws are up to their necks in this, and stand to lose a great deal of money if compensation is paid out. They have millions invested in Infosys/Horizon/Liberty Global and his father-in-law is a director.”
Hence the Fake Labour Opposition’s complete silence over this, while the whole of Parliament kicks up over Irrelevant Gaza to distract the public.