• Genuine men''s bags retro men''s business bags briefcase cowhide oblique Bag 15.6 inch Laptop Bag
    Product Link: https://fadmart.shop/goodsDetails?jobsProductId=1669756538698588160&recommendProductId=2404280722100354400&hyId=kibt-fe-cj

    #online #virel #SoMee #trending #love #friends #like #upvote #sponsored #boost #boss #strong #woman #fashion #bag
    Genuine men''s bags retro men''s business bags briefcase cowhide oblique Bag 15.6 inch Laptop Bag Product Link: https://fadmart.shop/goodsDetails?jobsProductId=1669756538698588160&recommendProductId=2404280722100354400&hyId=kibt-fe-cj #online #virel #SoMee #trending #love #friends #like #upvote #sponsored #boost #boss #strong #woman #fashion #bag
    0 Comments 0 Shares 625 Views
  • Natural Brazilian Citrine Pendant Female Crystal Buy This Now
    Product Link: https://fadmart.shop/goodsDetails?jobsProductId=1684881123102072832&recommendProductId=2405182010000322700&hyId=kibt-fe-cj

    #SoMee #trending #love #friends #like #upvote #sponsored #boost #boss #strong #woman #fashion #jewlary
    Natural Brazilian Citrine Pendant Female Crystal Buy This Now Product Link: https://fadmart.shop/goodsDetails?jobsProductId=1684881123102072832&recommendProductId=2405182010000322700&hyId=kibt-fe-cj #SoMee #trending #love #friends #like #upvote #sponsored #boost #boss #strong #woman #fashion #jewlary
    0 Comments 0 Shares 632 Views
  • https://trendingnews-4.blogspot.com/2024/05/3-hour-tom-brady-roast-on-netflix-has.html
    https://trendingnews-4.blogspot.com/2024/05/3-hour-tom-brady-roast-on-netflix-has.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 779 Views
  • My WhatsApp Number Came: +1 (438) 299-9422
    #music #NewsUpdate #trending #movies #model #datingonline
    🌹My WhatsApp Number Came👉: +1 (438) 299-9422 #music #NewsUpdate #trending #movies #model #datingonline
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1847 Views
  • Carmen Leitch - A Mysterious Plasmid is Found at High Levels in the Human Gut:

    https://www.labroots.com/trending/genetics-and-genomics/27029/mysterious-plasmid-found-levels-human-gut

    #Plasmid #PBI143 #Metagenome #Gastrointestinal #Gut #Microbiology #Biology
    Carmen Leitch - A Mysterious Plasmid is Found at High Levels in the Human Gut: https://www.labroots.com/trending/genetics-and-genomics/27029/mysterious-plasmid-found-levels-human-gut #Plasmid #PBI143 #Metagenome #Gastrointestinal #Gut #Microbiology #Biology
    WWW.LABROOTS.COM
    A Mysterious Plasmid is Found at High Levels in the Human Gut | Genetics And Genomics
    There are trillions of microorganisms in the human gastrointestinal tract, and this gut microbiome includes bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi. | Genetics And Genomics
    Love
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1662 Views
  • 8hrs later after somee PEKI INU - PEKINU [bsc] Pumping!
    Marketcap Raised by 12.75%
    Marketcap: $81,039
    CA: 0x760539FF254A88B925fd940C8Bc01069cf76069b.
    DexS DexT Trending5⃣ #crypto #cryptocurrency #cryptotok #memecoin #meme coin #binance #binancesmartchain #meme #bnb #ethereum #solana #xrp #shiba #shibainu #pepe #bonk #bitcoin
    8hrs later after somee PEKI INU - PEKINU [bsc] Pumping! ↗️ Marketcap Raised by 12.75% 💰 Marketcap: $81,039 CA: 0x760539FF254A88B925fd940C8Bc01069cf76069b. 📊DexS 📊DexT 🔰Trending5⃣ #crypto #cryptocurrency #cryptotok #memecoin #meme coin #binance #binancesmartchain #meme #bnb #ethereum #solana #xrp #shiba #shibainu #pepe #bonk #bitcoin
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8493 Views
  • The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide
    By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read
    The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed.

    One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva.

    A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB).

    Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella.

    The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant.

    Historical Perspective

    These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing.

    In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others.

    The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat.

    With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations.

    As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context.

    Why May 2024?

    The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place.

    They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years..

    A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions.

    The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations.

    This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO.

    The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva.

    Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent.

    Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different.

    The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm.

    To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below.

    The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement.

    REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024

    Preamble

    Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.

    This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm.

    Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

    This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed.

    Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness.

    In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes.

    Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services,

    As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations.

    These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective.

    Chapter I. Introduction

    Article 1. Use of terms

    (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern.

    This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022.

    (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality.

    This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response.

    “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship.

    While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people.

    Article 2. Objective

    This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern.

    Article 3. Principles

    2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation

    The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary.

    3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people.

    This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda).

    Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact.

    5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics

    As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes.

    The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity.

    Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

    Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these.

    In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events.

    Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance

    2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate:

    (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential.

    (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.]

    The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations.

    The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work.

    6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article.

    Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs.

    Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

    Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?)

    Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new).

    Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery

    2. Each Party commits…[to] :

    (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations

    (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure

    (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies

    (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems

    This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking.

    (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

    This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision.

    Article 7. Health and care workforce

    This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for:

    4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment…

    Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so.

    Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews

    1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system.

    2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels.

    Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries.

    Article 9. Research and development

    Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?).

    Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production

    Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations.

    Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how

    This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc.

    Article 12. Access and benefit sharing

    This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials.

    3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]:

    (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party;

    (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs),

    Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this.

    The article then becomes yet more concerning:

    6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer:

    (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties;

    (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, …

    It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight.

    The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment.

    8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible.

    The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit.

    10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality.

    The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine.

    The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products.

    It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity.

    Article 13. Supply chain and logistics

    The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products.

    Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it).

    For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase.

    Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions

    While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing.

    Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening

    This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort.

    Article 15. Liability and compensation management

    1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms…

    2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations.

    This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does.

    This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm.

    Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk.

    These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak.

    Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation

    A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement.

    Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches

    A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries).

    However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed).

    Article 18. Communication and public awareness

    1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation…

    2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies.

    The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss.

    As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement.

    Article 19. Implementation and support

    3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005).

    As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other.

    Article 20. Sustainable financing

    1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall:

    (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);…

    This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it.

    3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005)

    This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva.

    It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking.

    Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions

    Article 21. Conference of the Parties

    1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established.

    2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation.

    This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion.

    Articles 22 – 37

    These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues.

    Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU).

    The WHO will provide the secretariat.

    Under Article 24 is noted:

    3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws 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.

    These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement.

    As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.”

    Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public.

    Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time.

    Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it.

    Further reading:

    WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website:

    https://inb.who.int/

    International Health Regulations Working Group website:

    https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html

    On background to the WHO texts:

    Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide
    An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations
    On urgency and burden of pandemics:

    https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic

    Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy
    Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk
    Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement:

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Authors

    David Bell
    David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

    View all posts
    Thi Thuy Van Dinh
    Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/

    https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws 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. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 58916 Views
  • hello guys Watch sports all match Live in any here full hd . just click the link and Sign up and watch your all Flavourit sports in one Platform .
    #trending
    #sports
    #livesports
    #football
    #livematch
    #golf
    #nfl
    #nba
    #ufc
    #free
    #rugby
    #foryou
    hello guys Watch sports all match Live in any here full hd . just click the link and Sign up and watch your all Flavourit sports in one Platform . #trending #sports #livesports #football #livematch #golf #nfl #nba #ufc #free #rugby #foryou
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3565 Views
  • FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19
    by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am
    In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

    “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

    This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

    There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.

    New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP

    A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

    The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

    “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

    Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine.

    U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

    On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

    “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.

    Emily Post News reported:

    The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.)

    It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.

    Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

    It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update.

    Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted.

    “After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden.

    Trending: MAGA Beauty Isabella DeLuca’s Arrest Is Proof Positive That Biden’s Weaponized Justice System Has Become Outright Despotic Against Political Dissidents


    The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

    “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

    “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

    However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”

    Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication.

    Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit.

    “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote.

    “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday.

    During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID.

    “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold.

    “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said.

    “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”

    “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.

    It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech.

    The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital.

    Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug.

    Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin.

    “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.”

    “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.”


    The U.S. FDA was sued over its false statements about ivermectin and now has to remove those false statements from their social media posts https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-loses-its-war-ivermectin-agrees-remove-all/. I wonder if the Singapore MOH is following this development.


    FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19 by Jim Hᴏft Mar. 22, 2024 8:30 am In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19. “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time. This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals. There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients. New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice. The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment. “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden. Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine. U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media. Emily Post News reported: The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.) It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19. Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update. Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted. “After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden. Trending: MAGA Beauty Isabella DeLuca’s Arrest Is Proof Positive That Biden’s Weaponized Justice System Has Become Outright Despotic Against Political Dissidents The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19. “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.” “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued. However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication. Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit. “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote. “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday. During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID. “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold. “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said. “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.” “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said. It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech. The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital. Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug. Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin. “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.” “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.” The U.S. FDA was sued over its false statements about ivermectin and now has to remove those false statements from their social media posts https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/fda-loses-its-war-ivermectin-agrees-remove-all/. I wonder if the Singapore MOH is following this development.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 14949 Views
  • Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin
    The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19.

    vnninfluencersMarch 22, 2024
    This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission.

    Guest post by Jim Hᴏft

    In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

    “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

    This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

    There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.



    A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

    The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

    “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

    Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine.

    U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

    On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

    “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media.

    The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today.


    The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19.

    “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

    “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued.

    However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”

    Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication.




    Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit.

    “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote.

    “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday.

    During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID.

    “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold.

    “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said.

    “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.”

    “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said.

    It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech.

    The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital.

    Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug.

    Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin.

    “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.”

    “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.”

    Copyright 2024 The Gateway Pundit


    https://vigilantnews.com/post/lawsuit-drops-bombshell-on-fdas-orwellian-lie-about-ivermectin/
    Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19. vnninfluencersMarch 22, 2024 This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission. Guest post by Jim Hᴏft In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19. “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time. This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals. There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients. A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice. The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment. “We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden. Claims were made that the initial article misrepresented the law by stating the FDA’s official stance against Ivermectin use without mentioning that doctors were allowed to administer the medicine. U.S. law is cited in the complaint, including the provision that the FDA “may not interfere with the authority of a health care provider to prescribe or administer any legally marked device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.” On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly agreed to remove all its previous social media posts and consumer advisories that specifically addressed the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. “FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history. This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Bowden wrote on her social media. The plaintiffs have recently received the signed court order and are preparing to issue a press release about it later today. The Gateway Pundit previously reported that during a hearing, the agency’s lawyers argued that the FDA was only giving advice and it was not mandatory when it told people to “stop” taking Ivermectin for COVID-19. “The cited statements were not directives,” said Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers. “They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.” “They use informal language, that is true… It’s conversational but not mandatory,” he continued. However, the statement from the lawyer contradicted the FDA’s social media post, stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it,” and another tweet says, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.” Both tweets displayed the title of “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and included a link to that publication. Last year, Doctors Mary Talley Bowden, Paul Marik, & Robert Apter appeared in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of their lawsuit. “The FDA is not your doctor. Yesterday we took them to court to remind them of that,” Dr. Bowden wrote. “A pharmacist cites CDC and US FDA as why she will continue to deny filling prescriptions for ivermectin. On Tuesday, the FDA’s attorney declared the FDA has no problem with doctors prescribing ivermectin off-label. It’s time for them to make a formal announcement and set the record straight,” Bowden wrote on Thursday. During the oral argument, Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA stated that the agency “explicitly recognizes” that doctors do have the authority to administer ivermectin to treat COVID. “”FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” said Honold. “FDA made these statements in response to multiple reports of consumers being hospitalized, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses, which is available for purchase over the counter without the need for prescription,” Honold said. “In some contexts, those words could be construed as a command,” Ms. Honold said. “But in this context, where FDA was simply using these words in the context of a quippy tweet meant to share its informational article, those statements do not rise to the level of a command.” “FDA is clearly acknowledging that doctors have the authority to prescribe human ivermectin to treat COVID. So they are not interfering with the authority of doctors to prescribe drugs or to practice medicine,” she said. It can be recalled that Houston Methodist launched an investigation into Bowden and suspended her for defying health authorities and exercising free speech. The hospital excoriated Bowden for “using her social media accounts to express her personal opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” NBC News reports. The suspension barred the physician from admitting or treating patients at the hospital. Bowden repeatedly warned that it is “wrong” to mandate the experimental mRNA vaccines and continuously touted Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment amid threats from public health officials against prescribing the drug. Bowden was forced to resign. In her resignation letter, Bowden doubled down on the efficacy of Ivermectin. “I have worked hard to provide early treatment for victims of COVID-19. My efforts have been successful. I have treated more than 200 COVID-19 patients, including many with co-morbidities, and none of these patients have required hospitalization. This is a testament to the success of my treatment methods,” she wrote. “Throughout this pandemic, there has been no FDA-approved treatment for COVID. Therefore I have done my best to care for patients and save lives in the absence of a clear scientific consensus.” “Early treatment must still be part of any strategy for patient care. That is why physicians and hospitals should pay more attention to medications such as Ivermectin, which significant research and my clinical experience indicate is effective,” she continued. “I have decided to part ways with Houston Methodist because of the accusation that I have been spreading “dangerous information.” This is false and defamatory. I do not spread misinformation, and my opinions are supported by science. There is substantial evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID-19, and no evidence for serious or fatal side effects associated with the doses used to treat COVID-19.” Copyright 2024 The Gateway Pundit https://vigilantnews.com/post/lawsuit-drops-bombshell-on-fdas-orwellian-lie-about-ivermectin/
    VIGILANTNEWS.COM
    Lawsuit Drops Bombshell on FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin
    The FDA has lost its war on ivermectin and agreed to remove all related social media content and consumer advisories on ivermectin usage for COVID-19.
    1 Comments 0 Shares 11298 Views
  • Carmen Leitch - A Tropical Fruit With a Antimicrobial Effects:

    https://www.labroots.com/trending/microbiology/26800/tropical-fruit-antimicrobial-effects

    #BlighiaSapida #Okpu #TropicalFruit #Antimicrobial #AntibioticResistance #Antibiotic #Disease #Pathogenicity #Medicine #PlantBiology #Microbiology #Biology
    Carmen Leitch - A Tropical Fruit With a Antimicrobial Effects: https://www.labroots.com/trending/microbiology/26800/tropical-fruit-antimicrobial-effects #BlighiaSapida #Okpu #TropicalFruit #Antimicrobial #AntibioticResistance #Antibiotic #Disease #Pathogenicity #Medicine #PlantBiology #Microbiology #Biology
    WWW.LABROOTS.COM
    A Tropical Fruit With a Antimicrobial Effects | Microbiology
    Tens of thousands of people die from antibiotic resistant infections very year, and these pathogenic microbes present a growing threat to public health. | Microbiology
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2655 Views
  • Just sign up and get a Cash App 750$ gift card!
    Don't be late. it's a good opportunity for you.
    Grab now: https://bit.ly/3P6WVxv

    #viralvideo #viral #viralvideos #viralpost #trending #explorepage #tiktok #explore #instagram #viralindonesia #love #like #follow #instagood #video #memes #likeforlikes #fyp #foryou #music #funnyvideos #funny #followforfollowback #detik #videoviral #india #lfl #reels #foryoupage #literasi
    Just sign up and get a Cash App 750$ gift card! Don't be late. it's a good opportunity for you. Grab now: https://bit.ly/3P6WVxv #viralvideo #viral #viralvideos #viralpost #trending #explorepage #tiktok #explore #instagram #viralindonesia #love #like #follow #instagood #video #memes #likeforlikes #fyp #foryou #music #funnyvideos #funny #followforfollowback #detik #videoviral #india #lfl #reels #foryoupage #literasi
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8192 Views
  • Get $75 Taco Bell Gift Card Easily Online Payment Available

    https://sites.google.com/view/tacobella/


    #appdevelopmentcompany #ppt
    #powerpointtemplates #powerpointpresentation
    #IslamForU #marketing #india #memes #followforfollowback #likeforlikes #insta #a #trending #fashion #digitalmarketing #viral #k #m #socialmediamarketing #o #art
    Get $75 Taco Bell Gift Card Easily Online Payment Available👇👇👇 https://sites.google.com/view/tacobella/ #appdevelopmentcompany #ppt #powerpointtemplates #powerpointpresentation #IslamForU #marketing #india #memes #followforfollowback #likeforlikes #insta #a #trending #fashion #digitalmarketing #viral #k #m #socialmediamarketing #o #art
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6643 Views
  • Get a $75 Taco Bell Gift Card!

    https://sites.google.com/view/tacobella/

    #viral #explorepage #trending #explore #instagram #tiktok #love #like #follow #appdevelopmentcompany
    #ppt
    #powerpointtemplates
    #powerpointpresentation
    #IslamForU #instagood #likeforlikes #Islam241 #memes #music #followforfollowback #fyp #viralvideos #lfl #photography #likes #viralpost #indonesia #instadaily #india #model #cute #k #style #foryou #fashion #art
    Get a $75 Taco Bell Gift Card!👇👇👇 https://sites.google.com/view/tacobella/ #viral #explorepage #trending #explore #instagram #tiktok #love #like #follow #appdevelopmentcompany #ppt #powerpointtemplates #powerpointpresentation #IslamForU #instagood #likeforlikes #Islam241 #memes #music #followforfollowback #fyp #viralvideos #lfl #photography #likes #viralpost #indonesia #instadaily #india #model #cute #k #style #foryou #fashion #art
    SITES.GOOGLE.COM
    Home
    Get A $75 Taco Bell Gift Card!
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 9964 Views
  • Get a $75 Taco Bell Gift Card!

    https://sites.google.com/view/tacobella/

    #marketing #india#Islam241 #memes #followforfollowback #likeforlikes #insta #a #trending #digitalmarketing #viral #k #m #socialmediamarketing #o #art #Viral
    Get a $75 Taco Bell Gift Card!👇👇👇 https://sites.google.com/view/tacobella/ #marketing #india#Islam241 #memes #followforfollowback #likeforlikes #insta #a #trending #digitalmarketing #viral #k #m #socialmediamarketing #o #art #Viral
    SITES.GOOGLE.COM
    Home
    Get A $75 Taco Bell Gift Card!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6320 Views
More Results