World Health Organisation Treaty?

IĀ  understand people’s concern about the UK signing a world Treaty on healthcare that could make running the NHS difficult or otherwise constrain good UK policy choices. There are a lot of false rumours flying around. As there is currently no draft it isĀ  not possible to say muchĀ  on the wisdom or dangers of this particular idea.

The WHO has set up an International Negotiating Board to try to draft a binding Protocol over future responses to pandemics. The timetable is according to the WHO as below.

  • The INB will host itsĀ second round of public consultation hearingsĀ on 16-17 June 2022.
  • The INB will meet by 1 August 2022 to discuss and consider a working draft treaty.
  • The INB will deliver a progress report to the 76thĀ World Health Assembly in 2023.
  • The INB will submit its outcome for consideration by the 77thĀ World Health Assembly in 2024.

Those wishing to influence or oppose this development should respond to the consultation. I have already made it clear I do not favour the UK signing a Treaty but we should take good ideas from WHO and implement them as appropriate.

76 Comments

  1. Sea_Warrior
    May 19, 2022

    I am rather treatied-out. And think that evil China has too much influence over the WHO. So, no thanks!

    1. SM
      May 19, 2022

      I’m with you and our host on this one, SW. And I spent a little time attempting to find out which countries were participating in the International Negotiating Board but was confounded – can anyone help?

      1. APL
        May 19, 2022

        SM: “can anyone help?”

        The WEF.

    2. Pauline Baxter
      May 19, 2022

      Sea Warrior.
      I quite agree. China being a very large land mass could easily afford to lock down the affected area. It also has the state power to force citizens to obey.
      That is the last thing we want here.
      (From what I’ve read the EU, continued with many of the Covid restrictions after ours had been lifted.)
      The W.H.O. ARE ALREADY CHANGING THE WORDING OF THE PRESENT TREATY.
      They are now saying lock downs are the only solution to pandemics.
      Personally I think our Government should GET OUT OF the present treaty and/or get out of the W.H.O..
      Didn’t Trump do that? Or threaten it?

      1. Sea_Warrior
        May 20, 2022

        China: a country so worried about what was going on inside Wuhan that it suppressed internal air-travel while demanding the maintenance of external links.

      2. Bill brown
        May 20, 2022

        Pauline Baxter

        The EU doesn’t legislate on restrictions in the member countries

        1. Peter2
          May 20, 2022

          It didn’t actually legislate.
          That is true bill.
          But it pressurised member states to follow their entralised lead on Covid responses.

          1. Bill brown
            May 21, 2022

            Peter 2

            What you are writing doesn’t say anything

    3. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      100% Agree – we all need a bit a breathing space to sort out our domestic affairs first

    4. Nottingham Lad Himself
      May 19, 2022

      So the China-controlled WHO severely criticises China over its current approach to covid19.

      How does that work, then?

      1. Bill B.
        May 20, 2022

        I’d say it works pretty well, lad, if its occasional reproach to China distracts you and others from recalling the WHO’s track record: its praise of the Chinese Communist lockdown policy in 2020, and its farcical pretend ‘investigation’ in 2021 of the origins of the Covid outbreak in Wuhan.

    5. rose
      May 20, 2022

      Who is to enforce this treaty? The PLA?

  2. Donna
    May 19, 2022

    Something seems to have gone very badly wrong with our “Democracy” if a Prime Minister can even CONSIDER signing a Treaty which passes responsibility for governing the country to a corrupted Globalist organisation like the WHO, effectively giving them the authority to close down our economy whenever they believe they can get away with it.

    It also seems as though something is going badly wrong with our Constitution.

    Prince Charles is visiting Canada as representative of his mother, our Constitutional Monarch. Whilst there, Trudeau has announced that they are having discussions about ā€œSustainable finance in combating climate change and building a Net Zero economy.ā€

    Net Zero and the Climate Crisis propaganda is a political issue. There is no consensus and “the science” is not settled, despite the claims by the Eco Loons.

    Why is the Heir to the Throne, on behalf of the Queen, having political discussions with Trudeau?

    1. Paul Cuthbertson
      May 20, 2022

      Donna – Charlie and Trudeau are both Globalists and promote the WEF agenda. Power and control is their aim. We are irrelevant in their eyes but change is coming.

    2. Sea_Warrior
      May 20, 2022

      Good points. If Boris can’t be bothered to govern the country he should make way for someone who wants to.

  3. DOM
    May 19, 2022

    If the Chinese Marxist State and the US Socialist State want this to happen IT WILL HAPPEN irrespective of any and all opposition from whatever source

    It is nothing less than a circumvention of nation State democracy by world leaders who despise freedom and accountability

    The WHO has become a conduit for barbaric governments and their vile collectivist trash

    For millions of western, freedom loving people it will be a step too far and the kickback against this deceit could bring down those who think they can treat us with contempt

    1. No Longer Anonymous
      May 20, 2022

      Dom

      Hitherto the masses have had it too good to do civil disobedience. Too much to lose.

      That’s all changing.

  4. Everhopeful
    May 19, 2022

    One question.
    Why did we vote ( supported by some MPs at least) to leave the EU??
    Iā€™m afraid we have been cheated and lied to too much to believe soft words about this.
    The dystopian horror of signing up to such a treaty is beyond comprehension.
    Look at what all the other International treaties have done to us!

  5. Everhopeful
    May 19, 2022

    As others have said, our MPs, weakened by our liberal education system and EU membership literally canā€™t hack it alone.
    They need imperial or global direction.
    Someone to blame when it all goes wrong!

  6. Margaretbj.
    May 19, 2022

    I remember when the government spent thousands of pounds per week on overseas GPs who weren’t as competent or qualified as our own staff.Our own staff were taking in 3mnths what they took home in a week. This is just another ludicrous example of arrogant staff who rely on a few computer qualifications and trust the validity and competence of such.Of course they put the good experienced staff down to an even lower level so practitioners are lifting the higher paid and the lower paid.No on can understand the professional arrogance of those just made it . the salary chasers and the jealousy of good treatment.This may be a template for any other useless medics who are well protected as no one wants to pay out for mistakes.The twists of private firms has to be experienced to be believed.

  7. The Prangwizard
    May 19, 2022

    We must not sign up. We must make our own free decisions.

    I fear Boris, who likes to be famous, will sell us out again, this time to the WHO of the political international Left, which will gain power over our decision-making capability.

    Boris won’t bother with examining the dangerous detail. His priviledged position will enable him to dodge instructions the rest of us will be forced to accept.

    1. Ian Wragg
      May 19, 2022

      Yes, Bozo will want tobe the first to sign up to burnish his internationist credentials. Get the jo done, just ike the NIP being blackmailed and bullied by the EU.

      1. rose
        May 20, 2022

        Surely Raab will have to be consulted?

    2. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      Like every other policy, sign up first and sort out the detail & function later

  8. Everhopeful
    May 19, 2022

    This is the wish list for the Pandemic Treaty and if Politicians canā€™t see the elephant traps then I give up.
    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2022/03/30/a-new-pandemic-treaty-what-the-world-health-organization-needs-to-do-next/

    1. Pauline Baxter
      May 19, 2022

      Everhopeful.
      Yes I read that and promptly signed the gov uk petition saying it must not be signed by U.K. government without very full discussion by our parliament.
      It might even be demanding a referendum.
      Since then I’ve discovered that the WHO are already changing the wording of the present treaty, that we are already signed up to.
      They are already saying that extensive lock downs are the only possible response to what THEY decide to declare a pandemic.
      Elephant traps indeed. Perhaps our P.M. does not want US to see them.

    2. Christine
      May 19, 2022

      An interesting and frightening read. I notice that not one comment on this document is in favour of it.

      It looks like a stitch-up and power grab from Biden and the EU.

      The WHO hasn’t come through the pandemic without severe criticism so why do they think they should dictate what countries (or states as they refer to them) impose on their own people? It’s run by an unelected very dubious character. Why would our politicians give this organisation power over us?

      If Boris signs us up for this against our will then he is finished. We have had enough of non-elected organisations running our lives.

    3. formula57
      May 19, 2022

      @ Everhopeful – that LSE article actually states bold as brass “The justification for a pandemic treaty is that whilst the technical expertise on how to govern and end a pandemic exists, the political will to do so is missing.”!

      So politicians, spineless and gutless as they appear to the unaccountable international bureaucrats, will in future post-treaty have their hands forced without any need for the little people being consulted let alone have their views taken into account.

  9. Whalen
    May 19, 2022

    No point in signing more treaties until we face up to the ones we already have

    1. Mark B
      May 20, 2022

      Great post !

      +1

  10. Enough Already
    May 19, 2022

    So just like the Global Compact for Migration the UNā€™s sinister blueprint for globalist migration hell signed by the useless May.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      Wasn’t in the Tory manifesto…..but heyho

  11. G.Wheatley
    May 19, 2022

    Why would anybody sign-up to something without knowing what the ‘conditions’ were?

    We were sold the ā‚¬U ‘pup’ by Heath, compounded by various PMs since. We should walk away from – nay, run away from – this whole idea, as fast as we can.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      Tory social engineering at its best…..they know whats best for us plebs

  12. Pauline Baxter
    May 19, 2022

    Well Sir John.
    You have explained the plans for the new WHO pandemic treaty BUT!
    W.H.O. are RIGHT NOW, altering the wording of the present treaty, that we are already signed up to.
    They are changing it to read that Lock Downs, Test and Trace and other non medical interventions are the only way to control a pandemic.
    In other words, they are advising us to take all the measures that very nearly wreaked our economy and other good things about our country, when they declared Covid a Pandemic.
    And under the influence of SAGE etc. our government followed blindly.
    So IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED ONCE.
    It rather looks like the W.H.O. are planning to declare another pandemic soon. I.e. before they get this new treaty.
    As I say, Our Government followed blindly.
    Next time, the wording will encourage them more forcefully, to follow blindly.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      Maybe thatā€™s why this government is to continue to pay a company to maintain the NHS test & trace ā€˜appā€™ to the tune of Ā£2.5million this year (when test & trace finished in March)

      1. Sea_Warrior
        May 20, 2022

        I don’t mind the government spending money to maintain an app that might be needed in the future – but I can’t understand why that would cost Ā£2.5m/year.
        P.S. And when you look at the ‘cost’ of the Partygate inquiry, you get an implied workload of some 10 detective constable years.

  13. John McDonald
    May 19, 2022

    The WHO Like all international organisations (NATO, EU,etc.) seek to gain more political power. Not sure they were much good on advising about Covid. They went to China and came back saying no problem.
    On balance , with the exception of the UN which should be the only muiltistate organisantion, the rest cause more trouble for the ordinary citizen than good. The UN department of health is acceptable not some separate body like the WHO.

    1. rose
      May 20, 2022

      The UN has long been a an anti Western organization. That is why Trump didn’t want to pay for it.

  14. AdrianT
    May 19, 2022

    That list is frightening, to give the incompetent WHO any control over Global anything is cause for great concern. The authors of this LSE piece, Global this, Global that and Global the other, are suggesting involvement of the World Bank, IMF, WTO et al which puts up an immediate red flag for me.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      +1

  15. AdrianT
    May 19, 2022

    Sir John, Please tell me the following is not true!
    The WHA meets in Geneva from 22nd to 28th of this month and of particular interest will be whether the Assembly takes up any amendments to the International Health Regulations, if they do, then The WHO intends to amend 13 IHR articles: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59
    On January 18th 2022, the United States Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the IHR. These amendments give control over the declaration of a public health emergency in any member state to the WHO Director-General ā€“ even over the objection of the member state.
    The proposed IHR amendments also cede control to WHO ā€œregional directors,ā€ who are given the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC). Moreover, the proposed amendments allow the Director-General to ring an international alarm bell, by unilaterally issuing an ā€œIntermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA).ā€
    Put simply, the proposed IHR amendments are directed towards establishing a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting, and management. Consistent with a top-down view of governance, the public will not have opportunities to provide input or criticism concerning the amendments. This, of course, is a direct violation of the basic tenets of democracy and can be compared to the separate new pandemic treaty.
    *Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modelling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
    *48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
    *Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
    *Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director Generalā€™s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
    *Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
    Due to the influence of private money at the WHO, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy stated that the corruption of the WHO is the ā€œbiggest threat to the worldā€™s public health of our time.ā€ This is particularly true in relation to WHO drug recommendations, including its ā€œlist of essential medicines,ā€ which a growing number of people believe is biased and unreliable.

    Moreover, even though WHOā€™s documents highlight voice, agency, and social participation as drivers of equity and democracy, it is unknown World Health Assembly delegates who get to make decisions for us.
    Given consistent evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by various industries, its usefulness as a guide to public health must be critically re-evaluated, while alternative paradigms and models for ethical health guidance and human rights are built.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      Not a precursor to world governmentā€¦but world government in our time

  16. forthurst
    May 19, 2022

    Yes we all need equitable access to experimental vaccines with emergency authorisations as these are also supported by some of the most successful businessmen, and their interests and ours as we know from experience are perfectly aligned especially after ignorant and stupid Tories have given the pushers indemnity against prosecution for causing harm.

    There are no circumstances where it would be appropriate to give an international body the right to impose travel bans and curfews on people who do not want to be experimented on especially when the trials yielded so much collateral damage to subjects that no ethical organisation would have continued to push them.

  17. John O'Leary
    May 19, 2022

    Sir John, on the link you provided it states that the deadline for submissions was Wednesday 13 April 2022. So we have no way of making our feelings known to the WHO. We have to leave it to this government to refuse to sign it and the only way we can achieve that is writing to MPs. Please push as hard as you can to stop this.

  18. R.Grange
    May 19, 2022

    SJR, It’s not just a future treaty. I think you may also need to consider the proposed amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
    These give the WHO extended powers to require sovereign countries to justify to the WHO any divergence they may want to follow from WHO directives. That link shows how the new arrangements would impose duties on countries that were previously recommendations, e.g. wording in terms of ‘may’ now gets replaced by ‘must’.

    The last clause in the document seems to restrict the freedom of national parliaments to take country-specific decisions. The amended text is due to be debated by a meeting of the World Health Assembly, and perhaps ratified, in the next few days. It would be good to know if any British parliamentarians will be represented at this event.

    1. DavidJ
      May 19, 2022

      We need government to withdraw all support from the WHO and ignore its pronouncements.

  19. L Jones
    May 19, 2022

    ”As there is currently no draft….”
    Then that’s cutting it a bit fine, to say the least, if things are to start moving next month!
    And when was the ”first round of public consultation hearings”?
    This really does NOT seem to bode well.

  20. Christine
    May 19, 2022

    Boris should have learned his lesson on signing protocols that bind us to decisions we don’t agree with.

    1. Paul Cuthbertson
      May 20, 2022

      Christine – do you REALLY think he cares???

  21. Butties
    May 19, 2022

    Public Consultation 16-17 June, wow! That much time?

  22. graham1946
    May 19, 2022

    Let’s just hope the WHO in future will not be in the pocket of China as per their disgraceful behaviour before and at the beginning of the pandemic.
    If they try to lock us down again, I foresee public unrest and the end for any party who try to enforce it again. We know we were had last time. Boris should be more careful. He may not be concerned, being a transient politician, but we have long memories and he’s leaving a poisoned chalice if he signs up.

    1. L Jones
      May 19, 2022

      I doubt there’ll be public unrest. The thralls will just knuckle down and hope for the best, because that’s what their masters tell them – ”it’ll be all right next time….”. Hopeful people are easier to control.
      And all the ‘parties’ are the same anyway.

    2. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      China doesnā€™t need any kind of kinetic war to win influence, power and landā€¦it just needs to control the many bodies of the UN (like its been doing with universities cross the globe)

  23. Fedupsoutherner
    May 19, 2022

    It’s strange that the WHO hasn’t given out revised advice on the wearing of masks. Apparently there is scientific peer reviewed evidence now that where people were forced to wear masks all day the death rate was higher. They also cause all kinds of other health problems and it’s not good for the unborn. Also can someone explain why we are all ok even though our boosters only lasted for 2 months. I had mine done 6 months ago so I can’t have much or any protection left. This latest move by the WHO is just the beginning of more control.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      I saw that programme this week about the wearing of masksā€¦quite alarming that the wearing of masks resulted in more deaths (the advice of WHO and our own SAGE)

  24. Bloke
    May 19, 2022

    People of the British Isles are mostly decent folk who tend to do what is right in both our own citizens, interests and welfare as well as being fair to others around the world.

    We do not need to surrender authority to some outside group to force us to maintain our natural inclination in favour of someone else’s notion of probity.

    1. Mark B
      May 20, 2022

      Hear hear.

  25. Paul Cuthbertson
    May 19, 2022

    Do you trust your government, see who attends the WEF gathering?

  26. turboterrier
    May 19, 2022

    If as being reported in the media that the PM in principle has given his commitment to the proposals. Is there no end to this man’s arrogance and how totally out of touch he is with reality?
    He is totally besotted with playing the world stage and the images that will be presented by the media for the furtherance of his own personal career.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      With something so wide ranging, the Tory Party should wait and include the WHO proposal in its next manifesto for the people to decide….democracy

  27. Lindsay McDougall
    May 19, 2022

    Are International Law and International Agreements in the interest of the United Kingdom? I think not. The worst day’s work we ever did was when in 1970 Lord Caradon signed up to the International Law on Treaties. This foolish act has led to the sanctification of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, over which we are being told off by Sinn Fein no less. It is not so long since Sinn Fein was the political wing of the Provisional IRA.

    1. glen cullen
      May 19, 2022

      Concur

  28. X-Tory
    May 19, 2022

    This proposed Treaty is clearly madness. It has no value and is a complete denial of democracy, although that should come as no surprise from a body that is so enamoured with China. I am glad that you, Sir John, are opposed to it, and that is greatly to your credit. But can you explain why the cretinous traitor Boris Johnson has not rejected any involvement in this out of hand? That would be the correct response from a patriotic British government. Every day Boris proves he is too weak, too stupid, too internationalist and too treasonous to be PM. For God’s sake send your letter in to Graham Brady!

    1. Mark B
      May 20, 2022

      He is NOT British ! He was born an American (USA) and only obtained British Citizenship recently.

    2. Bill brown
      May 20, 2022

      X-tory

      You really have to learn to moderate the use of so many praising superlatives about everything and everybody

      1. Peter2
        May 20, 2022

        Have you heard the old saying that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit billy.

        1. Bill brown
          May 20, 2022

          Peter 2

          You should know but it is not very good

  29. APL
    May 19, 2022

    JR:”I have already made it clear I do not favour the UK signing a Treaty ..”

    John Redwood is not in favour of signing this treaty.

    JR: ” ..but we should take good ideas from WHO and implement them as appropriate.”

    John Redwood is in favour of implementing the treaty by the back door.

    This is why the Tory party is utterly useless.

    By the way, at a time when everyone else’s energy costs are going through the roof, MPs have awarded themselves another Ā£2.5grand.

  30. DavidJ
    May 19, 2022

    Boris has to be stopped from signing us up to this. Given the response to my concerns from our own MP I am not confident that government will resist signing up to it.

  31. Mark B
    May 20, 2022

    Question

    Why does there have to be a treaty ?

    Given that this how the EU work, we who voted Leave and wish to be a sovereign and independent country are rightly suspicious of this. I am all for protocols to be drawn up, but the final say must be with our parliament and elected officials. We the people must be able to hold the government to account via the ballot box. Take that away and you have revolution.

  32. Iain Moore
    May 20, 2022

    No, No, No , No, The Government must not sign up to this appalling treaty . What is it with the British establishment that makes them entertain such ? Haven’t they learned anything from Brexit? The problems of the people smugglers and the invasion on our Southern coast is the result of other treaties they signed us up to that makes us powerless to act.

    You might have thought the political cost of asylum circus would make them reluctant to even contemplate signing away more of our Sovereignty, but here we are again, the people trying to stop the establishment recklessly giving away our Sovereignty , and worse giving it away to an organisation compromised by the CCP, an organisation whose advice over the Covid pandemic was wrong. As for the schedule you list it seems they are trying to steamroller us into to it before the public have been made aware of what is going on, and the dangers of it. This needs to be killed off and fast before we find ourselves too far into the process to get out of it.

  33. Atlas
    May 20, 2022

    I’ve already raised this with my MP – I await a reply…

    It certainly needs debating in Parliament.

  34. The other Christine
    May 20, 2022

    It’s encouraging to see that Sir John has concerns about the proposed treaty and has expressed them but he is just one voice in the cacophony of noise that is the House of Commons. I suggest anyone who has concerns email the PM. We need to remember that ultimately the Government governs with our consent. The power resides with us.
    We are many. They are few.

  35. Bryan Harris
    May 20, 2022

    Simply the concept of GIVING AWAY national authority to an international body that is totally out of democratic control should be enough for logical minds to dismiss this impertinent idea.

    The WHO with its vast resources should be an advisory board, but demand power over our lives without limit — There is no way we can trust them to perform as benevolent dictators

  36. N Tatum
    May 21, 2022

    A ‘binding protocol’ ! Says it all really.

Comments are closed.