INB13 is due to take place between 17th and 21st February 2025 but what is the current state of play?
Where did it all start?
A special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA), held in December 2021, established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) (representing all regions of the world) and gave the INB a mandate to draft and negotiate a “convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” under the WHO Constitution. Its final outcome was due to be submitted to the 77th WHA in May 2024. The goal: “to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”. You can read more about this here.
As the INB failed to reach a settlement in its negotiations, no agreement could be submitted for consideration at the 77th WHA so, on 1st June 2024 at the WHA, it was agreed that the INB mandate should be extended with an agreement to complete negotiations by the end of 2024 or, failing that, by the 78th WHA in May 2025. The INB failed to meet the extended deadline of end of 2024.
Where are we now?
As the INB failed to meet the two previous deadlines it must now submit the agreement for consideration to the 78th WHA on May 2025.
The 13th meeting of the INB (INB13) commences on 17th February and runs through to 21st February.
What is the justification for the Pandemic Agreement?
The claim that there is a persistent and ever-increasing threat to public health from viruses with pandemic potential is the justification for the need for a Pandemic Agreement and the additional claim that such an agreement will make the world safer and healthier.
Dr Tedros Director of the WHO said:
“The next pandemic will not wait for us, whether from a flu virus like H5N1, another coronavirus, or another family of viruses we don’t yet know about but all the ingredients are in place to meet the objective of countries to negotiate a generational pandemic agreement.”
Ambassador Anne-Claire Amprou, INB Bureau Co-chair of France, said:
“During extensive discussions, visible commitment was shown by Member States of WHO towards a pandemic agreement, there was clear recognition from all countries that we must agree on a way forward to work better, together, to protect their citizens from future pandemics.”
Ms Precious Matsoso, INB Co-Chair from South Africa, said:
“Following nearly three years of negotiations, countries are now focused on the remaining and most critical elements of the draft agreement to protect the world from future pandemics,”
But is the justification valid? This evidence from the Brownstone Institute would suggest not.
What if the WHO didn’t exist?
Contrary to the position of many commentators, the Pandemic Agreement is not about removing the sovereignty of nations.
Article 24, paragraph 2, of the draft agreement states:
“Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”
Had the WHO not existed during Covid19, the people would have experienced the same assaults on their freedoms as discussed in David Bells article here.
Reasons to reject the Pandemic Agreement
The INB has failed to consider/address many issues during the negotiations including the following:
- How the Pandemic Agreement will improve the health of the people of the world (perhaps that is because the goal is actually the re-distribution of wealth. A rinse and repeat of Covid19). As illustrated in the article above, pandemics are extremely rare so why commit such vast sums of money to them? How about directing those funds to heart disease, cancer, dementia?
- No assessment of the failed policies adopted during “Covid19” and the damage inflicted on the people from lockdowns, masks and vaccines.
- Those countries with lower access to vaccines had lower death rates as you can see here.
- Fundamental human rights, that the WHO says it upholds, were breached through “public health measures” introduced to contain “Covid19”.
- The fact that seasonal influenza disappeared during “Covid19”.
- A failure to share with the people the importance of good nutrition, sunlight, exercise, high quality supplements and social contact on health and well-being.
- A failure to acknowledge that the vaccine was neither “safe” nor “effective”.
- A failure to define “vaccine” or “pandemic”.
- A failure to address conflicts of interests.
James Roguski discusses all the above and more in his article on Substack.
Next steps/what you can do
INB13: 17th to 21st February.
Contact your MP about rejecting the Pandemic Agreement
Resources
The latest official version of the Pandemic Agreement:
The latest unofficial draft of the Pandemic Agreement can be read here.
World Health Assembly: WHO’s highest decision-making body, comprising of all of its 194 sovereign member countries.
