WHO Increased Control of Bahamian Public Health Policy

Parties to the treaty, according to the Concept Zero Draft, have to recognize the central role of the WHO as “the directing and coordinating authority on global health” (WHO 2023b: 5) as well as its central role “as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, in pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health system, and in convening and generating scientific evidence” (ibid.: 4). 

Authority Speeding Up the Approval for Drugs and Injections

Article 7(2)(b) of the Conceptual Zero Draft seeks to dramatically speed up the process by which products are authorized and brought to the market. The lessons of the COVID pandemic show that reducing regulatory standards for the regular approval of novel products still in an experimental phase carries considerable safety risks. A recent article in the International Journal of Molecular Science identified the many important safety steps that were skipped with the COVID vaccines.

Support for Risky Gain-Of-Function Research

Article 8 of the Conceptual Zero Draft supports gain-of-function (GOF) research despite its exceptional biosafety hazards. A House Intelligence Committee report and The Senate Report in 2023 both concluded that a lab-leak was the most likely origin of the pandemic. A paper in Frontiers concluded “the risks of GOF research are clearer now than when it was debated earlier, whereas the pandemic has shown that its benefits may be less significant. Therefore, it is now time to rethink the risk/benefit calculus of GOF research."

Undefined Global Review System to Oversee Health Systems

Article 12 and Article 20 of the Conceptual Zero Draft call for a Global Review Mechanism over how individual sovereign nations support and structure their public health care systems. This would include the ability to monitor the nation’s progress in complying with the treaty and would require the submission of periodic reports and reviews. The oversight mechanisms fail to clearly define the metrics and other criteria by which any compliance review would be based and is left to be decided at the first meeting of the Conference after adoption and ratification of the treaty.

Expanding Censorship of Competing Views

Article 17 of the Conceptual Zero Draft encourages the tackling of what the W.H.O. regards as “false, mis-leading, misinformation or disinformation, including through promotion of international cooperation” (WHO 2023b: 23). The proposed treaty  also asks for the explicit identification of “profiles of misinformation” (ibid.: 23). Neither the proposed pandemic treaty nor the amended IHR recognize the fact that the WHO and executive branches of government have put out significant amounts of false and misleading information throughout the COVID pandemic.

Risky Sharing of Pathogen Samples and Genetic Sequence Data

Article 10 of the Conceptual Zero Draft would set up a WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS System). We believe that the PABS System as proposed and accessible by all State Parties (which currently include dictatorships, countries engaged in war and state sponsors of terrorism) presents a liability. Any wider sharing of pandemic potential pathogens (PPPs) and their genetic sequence data has significant security implications. Information and materials can be misused by state or non-state actors to develop biological weapons or enhance their biological warfare capabilities. The WHO cannot guarantee that data or material shared via the PABS System will not end up in the wrong hands. 

Seeking to Control the Concept of One-Health

Article 17 of the Conceptual Zero Draft would implement a complex system known as One-Health in which control over human health, pet health, domesticated animal, farm animal and wild animal health and agricultural plant health and the overall health of the natural environment. Through the One Health agenda, the WHO will have the power to make decisions in matters relating to the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and deforestation), animal health (e.g. livestock) and human health (including vaccinations, social determinants and population movement). With these extended powers, the WHO could readily declare a climate or environmental emergency and enforce lockdowns, with little or no redress by its signatories.

Lack of freedom of speech

Safeguarding freedom of speech during complex health emergencies such as pandemics cannot be overstated. Open debate and scrutiny are essential for assessing the effectiveness and lawfulness of any action authorities take. Detering individuals from engaging in lawful speech is itself a human rights violation. There is a critical lack of definitions and clarity concerning the issues to be addressed such as ‘infodemics’, ‘misleading information’, ‘misinformation’, and ‘disinformation’ as well as the specific actions required from state parties like ‘managing’, ‘preventing’, and ‘combating’, which could lead to potential for fragmented and arbitrary implementation of the treaty’s mis- and disinformation-related provisions.

Lack of legal definition of terms

Important terms have not been legally defined “pandemic” (112 times), “response” (106 times), “preparedness” (74 times), “prevention” (68 times), “recovery” (52 times), “public health” (44 times), “equity” (32 times) and pandemic response products (27 times).  Lack of clear definitions can result in ambiguity, leading to different interpretations of the document's provisions, and increased disputes between parties. Individuals involved in the implementation of the agreements may apply terms inconsistently. Legal uncertainty can create a challenging environment for compliance and decision-making. Resolving disputes or clarifying ambiguous terms requires additional time and resources