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

Our Response in Crisis will Demonstrate Our Core Values as Muslims We feel hopeless and helpless witnessing all this violence. How we respond to these emotions will determine whether we are better human beings. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism Every day, we are witnessing acts of violence, terrorism and extreme military campaigns that do not give any consideration to children, women and civilians and even to the international communities and laws. Be it coming from Hamas, who is seeking justice for the decades of oppression under Israel’s military occupation, or all the dehumanising acts by the Zionist Israeli military who are taking advantage of the incident on 7 October 2023 to justify their merciless military actions, further illegal expansions and occupation of Palestinian lands and the collective punishment of innocent Palestinians. We are witnessing how the sacredness of human life that has been bestowed by Allah s.w.t. has not prevented people of power and influence from exploiting that power and manipulating narratives to garner support by dehumanising the other side. All these cause us pain, stir our emotions, and evoke anger within us. We feel hopeless and helpless and sometimes lose our trust in the authorities. The emotions are sometimes confusing and suffocating, especially when we see images that shrink our hearts and send currents up our spines. These emotions are natural for us human beings who have been nurtured to have a good heart, respect lives and humanity, and trust in one another. Read: A Mental Health Guide for Those Grappling With The Crisis in Gaza Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism How we respond to these emotions will determine whether we are better human beings. We are defending the humanity of everyone. Violence and terrorist acts have no place in humanity. All Palestinians and Israelis have the right to live peacefully and in harmony. All of them have their rights to the necessities of life like water, food, safety and security. For youths, as we go about our daily routines and activities amidst the images, narratives of violence and hatred that are flooding social media, let us be mindful of our actions. Let us reflect and think through some of these principles and take them as our guidance in finding our emotional, psychological and spiritual balance and equilibrium. Violence Begets Violence, Hatred Begets Hatred Through this conflict, we observe that violence begets violence, and hatred begets hatred. This is a universal law. When violence becomes the heartbeat that defines a conflict, innocent civilians are the primary victims. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism The current government of Israel is led by a Prime Minister and several ministers who are known for their far-right extremist ideologies. For example, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the current Minister of National Security, is known for his extremist views and advocacy for radical groups in Israel.[1] The government has clearly outlined its commitment to solidify the dominance of Jewish identity while continuing to suppress Palestinian rights in both Israel and the occupied West Bank. This is proposed through a governance system that establishes distinct tiers, perpetuating inequality across all levels. As a result, Palestinians have been deprived of their rights and protections, rendering them more vulnerable to violence and worsening the hardships they already face.[2] The leadership issues among the Palestinian people involve the disunity of several political groups governing Palestine, including Fatah, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian Authority and various political parties. One of the key points of division among them is how to engage and interact with Israel. Does it involve violence and force, or do they pursue objectives via negotiations and diplomacy?[3] Simultaneously, we must also be cautious of irresponsible people who propagate hate speeches, instigate disunity among us and take advantage of the emotional instability of people to propagate their own agendas. We have seen how extremist individuals and groups have exploited the internet and social media to lure vulnerable youths into radicalisation. Read: How Does Social Media Influence Online Radicalisation? Emulate and Embody the Prophetic Exemplars To end this long conflict requires restraint, big hearts, compassion, justice, humility, and other values that define us as human beings. Therefore, we should embody these values of humanity instead of succumbing to what is portrayed by these conflicts. This is truly a test not just for the whole of humanity but also individually for ourselves as well. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism Our best example to emulate and embody is the exemplary traits of our beloved Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Let us reflect on this tradition, especially the collection of Imām al-BukhārÄ«, where a hadith[4] narrated by Khabbab Bin Al-Arat r.a. tells us how he asked Rasulullah s.a.w. to pray for the Muslims due to the intensity of the persecution they were facing in Makkah during the early days of Islam. The Prophet s.a.w. replied that the previous community of believers (of past Prophets) also faced persecution of such severity. Even when it intensified, they would not lose or abandon their faith. Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. then continued to prophesise that the lands of Sana’a and Hadramaut in Yemen would eventually be populated by Muslims. A prophecy that is proven true today without a doubt. This was a glad tiding to the declining situation of the relatively small generation of early Muslims. The hadith demonstrates to us the patience of the Prophet and the hastiness of the companions, at that time, who wanted to win over the people who oppressed them. The Beloved Prophet s.a.w, who is fully connected to Allah, assured the companions that Allah would grant them victory to the point that the route between Sana'a and Ḥaḍramawt would become safe. We Must Be Thankful for Allah’s Blessings Bestowed Upon Us in Singapore One way to be thankful for this blessing is to protect it. We must believe in the model of our Muslim community in Singapore. The fact that we are all able to carry on with our daily routines and activities in these difficult times does not come about by chance. As Singaporeans, we all have worked hard to develop trust with one another. We live amicably with our friends and neighbours who are of different races and religions, with the Islamic values of care, compassion, and trusting one another. We have lived peacefully with one another way before the coming of Sir Stamford Raffles to this island. We can see different places of worship within a neighbourhood or a street built way before Singapore’s independence. The peace and harmony we enjoy are rare commodities in this world. Let us all continue to be gracious Singaporeans to one another, believing in and trusting each other. As we advocate for our cause, let us ensure that we remain respectful and wise, avoiding personal attacks and hate speeches that could erode the trust we've built together. The Palestine-Israel Crisis Is Not a War Between Islam and Judaism Israel is not equal to Judaism. Israel is not equal to Jews. Simultaneously, Hamas does not represent all the Palestinians. Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived peacefully in the land in the last century. The crisis involves territorial disputes, historical grievances, and differing claims to the land. While it has often been framed in religious terms due to the significance of the land to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, at its core, the issue is primarily about land, power, and self-determination. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Abrahamic faiths Some of the rhetoric being played out on social media aims to create the impression for both the Muslim and Jewish communities that this conflict is a religious one. Some individuals employ religious symbols and the chant of "takbÄ«r" in an effort to garner attention from the public. Others invoke end-of-time discourses when discussing this conflict. Such discussions are not limited to Muslims; they also involve Christians and Jews. These narratives have raised concerns as public sentiments among both Muslims and Jews have been mocked and condemned. Read: Dealing With Recurrent Claims About The End Of The World We must be wary of the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia to the point that it could potentially cause tensions in our multi-religious country. More importantly, as we strengthen our faith for the Hereafter, let us pay attention to how Prophet Muḥammad s.a.w. advised us to navigate the signs of the end of times. Narrated by Anas r.a, from the Prophet s.a.w: “Even if the Day of Judgement is approaching and you have a palm shoot in your hand and can plant it before the Hour arrives, you should plant it.” (Adab Al-Mufrad) Do Not Underestimate the Power of Dua Never underestimate the power of dua (supplication) with a firm belief. It can change what you may have thought was impossible to change. Dua is never wasted. So, keep making supplications as it is a special gift that Allah has given to us. He is the Best Listener and He is always Listening. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism, Dua, Supplication Keep knocking on the door of the Merciful, and it will open eventually. The key is to be patient. Allah knows when is the right time to fulfil our supplications and bring us relief. The Prophet s.a.w. said: “Supplication is the shield of a believer, a pillar of the religion and light of heavens and earth.”[5] The Prophet further taught us the best way we can carry out our supplication. He said: “Whomsoever has completed reading the Quran, ask Allah with it” (Narrated by Imam At-Tabrani) Based on the above hadith, we can make supplications for our brothers and sisters in Gaza, Palestine and for all humanity after reading ṣūrah al-Ikhlāṣ three times as reading this ṣūrah three times is equivalent to completing the Qurān. Let us make duā after every á¹£olat for all those who are experiencing oppression to be given patience, perseverance and paradise for the sacrifices that they are experiencing. رَبِّ سَلِّمْ سَلِّمْ Oh Allah, save us, save us رَبِّ سَلِّمْ سَلِّمْ إِخْوَانَنَا فِى فِلِسْطِيْنَ Oh Allah, save us, save us, save our brothers and sisters in Palestine Read: Seeking Allah in Times of Distress As the crisis continues, we can be overwhelmed when we experience moments of incapacity to help, the loss of freedom of choice to voice our concerns and acts, and other types of emotions. This is where we seek refuge in Allah out of our sheer necessity with no other ulterior motive. All these emotions are His creations, and we turn ourselves towards Him with these emotions. As we turn ourselves towards Him, we acknowledge our weaknesses and inabilities and read a dua taught to us by Allah in Surah Ali-’Imran, حَسْبُنَا اللَّهُ وَنِعْمَ الْوَكِيلُ “For Allah suffice for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs.” (Surah Ali-’Imran, 3:173) This was the dua read by Nabi Ibrahim a.s when he was catapulted into the fire. As he flew into the fire, he read this dua, and Allah commanded the fire to cool down for Nabi Ibrahim a.s. قُلْنَا يَا نَارُ كُونِي بَرْدًا وَسَلَامًا عَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ We said, “O Fire! Be your coolness and safety unto Ibrahim” (Surah Anbiya, 21:69) Read: Dua Qunut Nazilah With English Translation Channel Our Energy Towards a Good Cause Work together with others in contributing towards humanitarian aid during this conflict. People in Singapore, regardless of race and religion, were able to raise almost five million dollars in humanitarian aid for Palestine in less than 2 weeks after the fundraiser by the Rahmatan Lil Alamin (Blessings to all) Foundation, or RLAF, was launched. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism, Humanitarian, UNRWA, Help Always start something good within your means and circle of influence. For example, aside from making dua, donating and raising awareness about the crisis, we can also channel our efforts by volunteering at the mosque near our homes. Join the youth wing of the mosque and start supporting one another. Seek Guidance From Our Local Certified Asatizah As the conflict continues to unfold, we will continue to be bombarded with many different narratives. You may feel overwhelmed by the discussions and the emotions attached. Look for our local asātizah to process your feelings and thoughts. Go to the nearest mosque to seek help. Or you can look for a trusted adult to speak about your worries. Palestine, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Crisis, Conflict, Middle East, Apartheid, Violence, Terrorism, Humanitarian, Safe Space, Discussion, AYN There are available channels for you to seek help, like the Asatizah Youth Network, mysafespace.sg, Asatizah Solace Care and others. Keep an eye on divisive speeches and extremist thoughts in virtual chat rooms or in social media platforms. Read: Ask An Ustaz or Ustazah Questions Through Anonymous Chat With MYSAFESPACE The Prophet always wants us to unite instead of being divided. Narratives that seek to plant the seed of hatred towards fellow Muslims and others are signs for us to distance ourselves from them. In conclusion, let us take the opportunity in this challenging time to explain and showcase the beauty of Islam. Let us elucidate the core principles and values such as Peace, Excellence, Mercy, Forgiveness, Justice and Wisdom that are contained in the Qurān and the exemplars of the Prophet s.a.w. Read: 4 Ways to Respond to the Suffering Faced by the Palestinian People References & Notes: [1] Ruth Margalit, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s Minister of Chaos, The New Yoker, February 20, 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/27/itamar-ben-gvir-israels-minister-of-chaos accessed on 8th November 2023. [2] Jonathan Guyer, Israel’s new right-wing government is even more extreme than protest would have you think, in Vox Journalism, 2023. https://www.vox.com/world/2023/1/20/23561464/israel-new-right-wing-government-extreme-protests-netanyahu-biden-ben-gvir, accessed on 8th November 2023. [3] Alexandra Sharp, A Guide to Palestinian and Other Anti-Israel Factions, Foreign Policy, October 10 2023. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/10/what-is-hamas-israel-war-palestine-fatah-hezbollah/ accessed on 8th November 2023. [4] Narrated by Khabbab bin Al-Arat, “We complained to Rasulullah s.a.w. (of the persecution inflicted on us by the enemies) while he was laying down (and resting his head on a cloth) under the shade of the Kaabah. We said to him, "Would you seek help for us? Would you pray to Allah for us?" He said, "A man from the previous nation would be put in a ditch that was dug for him, and a saw would be put over his head, and he would be cut into two; yet that (torture) would not make him give up his religion. His body would be combed with iron combs that would remove his flesh from the bones and nerves, yet that would not make him abandon his religion. By Allah, this religion (i.e. Islam) will prevail till a traveller from á¹¢an‘ā (in Yemen) to Ḥaḍramawt will fear none but Allah, or a wolf as regards his sheep, but you (people) are hasty” (Sahih Al-Bukhari) [5] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/74/1701/index.php assessed on 8th November 2023. https://muslim.sg/articles/our-response-in-crisis-will-demonstrate-our-core-values-as-muslims

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/conservative-mp-leslyn-lewis-backs-petition-calling-for-canada-to-exit-un-who/ Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis backs petition calling for Canada to exit UN, WHO LifeSiteWed Oct 18, 2023 - 2:57 pm EDT Featured Image OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) –– Conservative Party of Canada MP Leslyn Lewis has endorsed an official House of Commons petition demanding the nation’s federal government “urgently” withdraw from the United Nations and its subgroup, the World Health Organization (WHO), due to the organizations’ undermining of national “sovereignty” and the “personal autonomy” of citizens. “We, the undersigned, Citizens and Residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to Urgently implement Canada’s expeditious withdrawal from the U.N. and all of its subsidiary organizations, including WHO,” reads the petition, which was initiated by Doug Porter from Burnaby, British Columbia, and then endorsed by Lewis. As of press time, the petition, which was opened on October 10, has just over 36,000 signatures. It will remain open for signing until February 7, 2024. The petition states that Canada’s current membership in the UN along with the WHO has resulted in “negative consequences on the people of Canada,” which far outweigh “any benefits.” Additionally, the petition reads that the UN’s “Agenda 2030″ undermines “national sovereignty and personal autonomy.” Many of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government goals, notably its environmental ones, are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Agenda 2030 is a plan that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, and through its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), seeks to “transform our world for the better,” by “taking urgent action on climate change,” as well as “support[ing] the research and development of vaccines and medicines.” Some of the 17 goals also seek to expand “reproductive” services, including contraception and abortion, across the world in the name of women’s rights. According to the UN, “all” nations working on the program “will implement this plan.” Part of the plan includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades. Canada is one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers, however, Trudeau has made it one of his goals to decimate the industry. In a blow to the globalist UN agenda, however, Canada’s oil and gas sector recently scored a huge win after the Supreme Court of Canada declared Trudeau’s government’s Impact Assessment Act, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is mostly “unconstitutional.” As for Lewis, she is pro-life and has consistently called out the Trudeau government for pushing a globalist, anti-life agenda on Canadians. Early this year Lewis noted that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is “not our government” and that Canadians did not “sign up” to be attached to one of its charters. Lewis herself helped expose Canadians to the fact that Trudeau’s Liberal government signed onto the WEF charter in 2020. Petitions to Canada’s House of Commons can be started by anyone but must have the support of five Canadian citizens or residents, along with the support of a sitting MP. Once a petition has over 500 verified signatures, it is presented to the House of Commons, where it awaits an official government response. Petition calls out UN’s sex-ed programs, saying Canadians did not vote for these to be pushed on kids The Lewis-backed petition states that Canada should have nothing to do with the UN’s sexual education programs as they have been pushed on the populace without the “consent” of the people. The petition reads that Agenda 2030’s SDGs, as well as its “Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)” program, its UN Judicial Review, and its International Health Regulations (IHR) are being “rapidly implemented,” with the absent awareness and “consent of the People or their elected representatives.” The petition reads that SDGs have “negative impacts on potentially every aspect of life,” in Canada, including “religious and cultural values, familial relations, education, nutrition, child development, property rights, economic and agricultural productivity, transportation, travel, health, informed consent, privacy and physical autonomy.” When it comes to the UN’s CSE, the petition states that publicly funded educational institutions have been “damaging children while concealing information from parents.” As a result, the CSE’s “normalization” of “sexual values and activities with regard to children are endorsed and enforced, beginning at birth.” As for the WHO, it claims that the CSE gives kids “accurate, age-appropriate information,” however it then says sexual education should start at the age of 5 as per UN guidelines. “Learning is incremental; what is taught at the earliest ages is very different from what is taught during puberty and adolescence,” reads the CSE. A report which was published by the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in collaboration with the WHO, told kids aged 5 to 8 that “people can show love for other people through touching and intimacy.” UN’s health regulations look to violate Canadians’ charter rights, says petition The petition notes that when it comes to Agenda 2030, many amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) were “secretly negotiated,” which as a result means they could “impose unacceptable, intrusive universal surveillance, violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Lastly, the petition states that the UN’s goals intend to impose “sweeping impacts on public and private life,” and only “serve the interests of UN/WHO and unelected private entities (e.g. World Economic Forum, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, International Planned Parenthood Federation, etc.), while diminishing the health rights and freedom of Canadians.” The WHO says that the IHR is a legally binding international body to which all UN members are committed to. Lewis has before blasted Canada’s involvement with the IHR and insisted last year that the Canadian government “defend our healthcare sovereignty” and vote against proposed U.S. amendments to the the IHR. The WHO’s IHR provides an “overarching legal framework that defines countries’ rights and obligations in handling  public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders.” “The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States,” notes the WHO. So far this year, there have been more than 300 proposed amendments to the IHR when it comes to the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Lewis recently called out the proposed amendments, saying that if enacted it would negatively affect how Canada deals with any future health crisis. On September 26, she presented to the House of Commons a petition specific to the IHR, which called for “urgent” debates on the amendments. Critics have sounded the alarm over the Trudeau government’s involvement in the WEF and other globalist groups, pointing to the socialist nature of the “Great Reset” agenda and its similarities to Communist China’s totalitarian Social Credit System. Lewis in June of this year had asked for a full disclosure of all “contracts, transfer payments, memoranda of understanding, letters of intent, charters, accords, projects and associations between the government and the WEF since November 4, 2015.”  The outcomes from the Order Paper resulted in a 127-page response that was tabled in the House of Commons on September 18.  Lewis has in the past blasted the WEF and its Known Traveller Digital Identification (KTDI) programs as “glitching failures.”   Your support makes stories like this possible! LifeSiteNews is completely donor supported, allowing us to report on what truly is happening in the world, free of charge and uncensored. A donation to LifeSite will ensure millions around the world can continue to come to our site to find the truth people are so desperately searching for on life, faith, family and freedom.

Sri Lanka ????❤️???????? Honestly I didn’t plan my trip at all…as I told before, I couldn’t find my passport…so there was “0” planning???? Few hours before my flight I contacted @srilankatravellers to pick me up from the airport and take me around for a few days. We quickly agreed on estimated trip plan based on the places I wanted to visit. Guess what, Hasi (my tour guide) met me with beautiful flowers ???? This is how our trip started… Hasi took me to Kandy first, there I spent the day and I stayed overnight. We discovered botanic garden, went to concert, walked around the city and had lunch and dinner, tried local cuisine and seafood ????, it was so delicious ???????????? ‼️Sri Lankan cuisine is very yummy, but too spicy ????️. However you can always ask to make it non spicy, like in my case, because I can’t eat spicy food. Would you like to know about nice places with delicious food and amazing view in Kandy? ???? Ah…and the most amazing - the hotel where I stopped ???????????? . . . #contentcreator #contentmarketing #srilanka #kandysrilanka #srilankahotels #srilankarestaurant #reviews #srilankareview #travelblogsrilanka #travelbloggers #hotelreviews #restaurantreviews

Beautiful sunset around Sri Lanka #travel #travelgram #travelphotography #traveling #travelblog #srilankatravel #srilankatravels #srilankatravelgram #srilankatraveldiary #srilankatravelsecrets #srilankatravellers #srilankatraveldirectory #srilankatraveller #srilankatraveldiaries #srilankatravelspots #srilankatravelling #srilankatravelerbook #bespokesrilankatravel #srilankatraveling #srilankatraveltips #srilankatravelblogger #srilankatravelblog #srilankatravelguidetodeaf #srilankatravelagency #srilankatraveldestinations #srilankatravelf #inbetweemsrilankatravel #srilankatravell #srilankatravelpics

Happy customers????❤️ Camperra camping gears for rent???? ????Wijerama, nugegoda???? Thanks for choosing us .We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. . Contact us -071 382 0128/078 389 9883 . . . . . . . . . . . #camping #windproofgasstove #hikerslife #camperlife #campinglife #campinggear #campingtrip #tents #bbqlife #travellife #traveller_stories #visitsrilanka #Bambarakanda

Hey guys hope you all are well???? On May 5, 2023, a zombie slayer with the ability to time travel ventures across time and space to rescue her beloved. #somee #awsme #movielover #movies #Zombie #zombietraveller #newmovie

Beautiful mountain view @ Ella - Sri Lanka https://www.srilankatravelandtourism.com/places.php . Explore Sri Lanka with Us. +94 777854022 (Mobile-WhatsApp-Viber) . Photo by @doyouspeaktravel #srilanka_travel #tea #ella #exploresrilanka #srilankatravel #yoga #ayurveda #tourist #colombo #travel #travelblog #traveller #traveler #travelling #travelingram #australia #usa #england #brazil #russia #spain #saudi #germany #china #canada #italy #switzerland #ireland #japan

???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ✨???????????? ▫️Exploring amazing beauty of train journey in Sri Lanka. One of the famous travelling mode in Sri Lanka is train. Travelling in trains gives you an amazing, wonderful and beautiful experience to the travellers. Train ride from Colombo to Badulla gives you a more scenery view about lust tea plantation, waterfall, nine arch bridge and many other beautiful things. Another beautiful journey is train ride in coastal area .It also offers an amazing experience to rides. Have a perfect journey by train that offers you a wonderful experience with beautiful views. Visit Sri Lanka for a memorable journey. • ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡ á´œs ????, ʟɪᴋᴇ á´œs ???????? ᴀɴᴅ ɢᴇᴛ ʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ғᴏʀ ᴀɴ ᴀᴍᴀᴢɪɴɢ ᴊᴏᴜʀɴᴇʏ! ????️ , , , , , , #travelsrilanka #travelphotography #travelling #SriLanka #tourism #tourismsrilanka #staysrilanka #someone #someeofficial #awesome #faris

???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ✨???????????? ▫️Exploring amazing beauty of train journey in Sri Lanka. One of the famous travelling mode in Sri Lanka is train. Travelling in trains gives you an amazing, wonderful and beautiful experience to the travellers. Train ride from Colombo to Badulla gives you a more scenery view about lust tea plantation, waterfall, nine arch bridge and many other beautiful things. Another beautiful journey is train ride in coastal area .It also offers an amazing experience to rides. Have a perfect journey by train that offers you a wonderful experience with beautiful views. Visit Sri Lanka for a memorable journey. • ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡ á´œs ????, ʟɪᴋᴇ á´œs ???????? ᴀɴᴅ ɢᴇᴛ ʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ғᴏʀ ᴀɴ ᴀᴍᴀᴢɪɴɢ ᴊᴏᴜʀɴᴇʏ! ????️ , , , , , , #travelsrilanka #travelphotography #travelling #SriLanka #tourism #tourismsrilanka #staysrilanka

Romantic Honeymoon Beach ????️????????????????️???????????????????????????? Let us arrange a romamtic holiday for you. https://www.srilankatravelandtourism.com/activities-sri-lanka/surfing/surfing.php Follow▶️ @srilanka_travel . Sri Lanka Travel Tour Operator. Explore Sri Lanka with Us ????+94 777854022 ( Mobile-WhatsApp) [email protected] ????www.srilankatravelandtourism.com ????by @anianocun #srilanka #viral #trending #instagram #instagood #instatravel #travelphotography #traveller #travelblogger #travelgram #adventure #sea #beach #pool #fitness #beachlife #beachvibes #wanderlust #mountains #train #view #landscape #photographer #autumn #summer #winter #ocean #nft #meta #ceylon

Beautiful Nature - Little Adam's Peak ????️????????????????️???????????????????????????? Let us arrange a romamtic holiday for you. https://www.srilankatravelandtourism.com/activities-sri-lanka/surfing/surfing.php Follow▶️ @srilanka_travel . Sri Lanka Travel Tour Operator. Explore Sri Lanka with Us ????+94 777854022 ( Mobile-WhatsApp) [email protected] ????www.srilankatravelandtourism.com ????by @anianocun #srilanka #viral #trending #instagram #instagood #instatravel #travelphotography #traveller #travelblogger #travelgram #adventure #wedding #bridetobe #beach #pool #fitness #beachlife #beachvibes #wanderlust #mountains #train #view #landscape #photographer #summer #winter #ocean #nature #honeymoon #ceylon

Some of the forbidden places in the world. https://www.traveller365.com/articles/ForbiddenPlacesInTheWorldThatYouCannotVisit #travel #adventure #cine #meme #somee #cent #neoxian #waiv #pob