WASHINGTON, D.C. – The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden is set to sign a “legally binding” contract with the World Health Organization (WHO) – a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health – that would grant them carte blanche to dictate the United States’ response and policies pertaining to any future pandemic.
The “U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue” was originally announced in September 2022 by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, with the stated goal of the union being to create a “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S.–WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”
The dialogue between the two parties culminated in the “zero draft” of a pandemic treaty, published on February 1; the final terms of the treaty will be worked out during a February 27 meeting of the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, after which it will be ratified by all 194 WHO member states.
Under the theme of “the world together equitably,” the current version of the zero draft would place the ability to declare global pandemic emergencies in the hands of the WHO; at such time, all the countries that have signed the treaty – including the United States – would give the WHO full authority to dictate their response to said pandemic, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.
The proposed arrangement has raised the ire of many due to the negative response to the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic; among those are David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specializing in epidemic policy.
“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” he said. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”
Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, said that putting that much power in the hands of the WHO could be potentially hazardous.
“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” Fhe said. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”
Physician Meryl Nass noted that the current draft of the WHO treaty would supersede her ability to dictate what treatments her patients should or should not receive, including prescribing so-called “alternative” treatments.
“If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient, whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency,” she said. “So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”