ENGLISH Why
We Should Oppose WHO Treaty
The
government has not bothered to inform us but only the statement of chief
scientist of WHO, who happens to be an Indian, informs us that an International
Pandemic Treaty is underway and most countries are in agreement.
While
the government has not shown any indication to discuss the draft in public
before going ahead with an all-important International Pandemic Treaty with
WHO, it is very important for us to understand and discuss it as it will affect
our health directly and it is going to be a second Episode of East India
Company rule in India.
Apart
from some basic epidemiological sense or even common sense, there are three
important factors why this Treaty has to be opposed. Firstly, WHO is not what it
was when it was formed, especially the funding of WHO has changed. Secondly,
the whole Treaty is being discussed behind closed doors, where apart from
representative of the member countries, other stake holders/social enterprises
(NGOs funded by large corporations?) were present, but we the people can know
only few statements from them. Thirdly our experience during Covid-19 episode
has proved that local experts were ignored to follow international guidelines wasting
not only public resources but destroying the economy and health of people.Previously
during Swine Flu episode also, it was exposed how WHO is a compromised
organisation.
WHO
Pandemic Treaty Does not make Epidemiological Sense:
Pandemics are driven by
regional factors. These factors in turn are dictated by geography, climate,
population density, demography such as age profile, health status such as
obesity levels, state of health services, urbanization and migration, to name a
few. For instance, in spite of similar guidelines followed by majority of
countries of the world, the impact of Covid-19 differed vastly in continents
Changed
Nature of WHO
How
the funding which was entirely by member countries proportionate to their GDP
has changed by the year 2000 to voluntary contributions which are project-based
and therefore in the end funded by pharmaceutical companies as is obvious from
the information given below. Thus, the policies and decisions of WHO are pharma
interest driven.
“Assessed
funding, currently about 20% of the WHO budget,18 is based on GDP, assessed for
all 196 current member states, and agreed by the UN General Assembly.19 Most of
the remaining budget is derived from voluntary contributions
While
most Global Fund support comes from governments, $250 million per year comes from
the BMGF.27 Similarly, other agencies such as Unitaid have arisen to fund
aspects of health in WHO’s traditional area of focus.28 Of particular
significance to the current WHO pandemic response are two further international
agencies. In 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, now
‘Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance’, was inaugurated primarily to fund vaccine
procurement and dissemination to lower-income countries. Gavi is thus
unashamedly a conduit linking large-scale pharmaceutical production with
primarylevel healthcare. It concentrates solely on provision of vaccines,
rather than on the holistic view of health envisioned by the Alma Ata
Declaration. The largest contributor to Gavi has been the BMGF,
The
Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, the largest corporate-based
contributor, is solely supported by pharmaceutical companies, namely Sanofi
Pasteur ($55,252,737), GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) ($53,132,053), Hoffmann - La Roche
and Co. Ltd. ($51,073,654), Seqirus ($17,876,129) and Novartis ($15,292,743).”
https://www.pandata.org/wp-content/uploads/PANDA_WHO_ReestablishingColonialism.pdf
Lack
of Transparancy and Public Debate over The Treaty
“A draft international pandemic treaty governing
prevention, preparedness and response of future pandemics will be ready for
negotiation in 18 months, said Soumya Swaminathan, chief scientist of the World
Health Organization (WHO).
Swaminathan’s statement came after a working draft was presented July 21, 2022 to the INB by
its bureau which compiled inputs from WHO Member States and other stakeholders,
drawing from their experiences in containing the current pandemic.
“The majority of WHO member states were in favor
of a legally binding instrument but there were differences on how they wanted
to proceed,” according to the social enterprise that was privy to a
closed-door INB meeting.
Only Russia wanted “non-legally binding
recommendations” in the draft, claimed the organisation”’
While the draft is available to read, it is
not open to our comments now. There are many objectionable issues in the draft.
·
First and foremost, it will be legally binding and the rules of our
country will be changed accordingly or the government may just do without it
brazenly.
·
In the name of Pandemic preparedness, the governments are supposed to
spend national resources on things that made billionaires to increase their
wealth by 30% in the 2 years of Covid episode. Governments bought testing kits,
PPE kits genome sequencing, vaccine and other drugs for a disease having 0.05%
Infection Mortality Rate from private manufacturers. Same is emphasised in the
Treaty. It will obviously be done at the cost of real health promoting expenses
that the government should do for people.
·
Surveillance is another important thing emphasised and it will curtail
our democratic rights.
·
Providing access to foreign experts will increase the external
interference in our health matters.
·
Regulatory authorities are to be strengthened to pass new (Not fully
tested?) drugs.
·
Encouraging private sectors is also mentioned. So economic affairs of
our country to be advised or determined by them!
·
One alarming part elaborated extensively is tackling false, misleading
information or disimformation. Our experience during Covid has been that many
sane voices of long experienced, senior doctors, experts in the field were
censored by authorities or by media Mughals when they were against the
mainstream narrative.
·
Though other social factors like gender, race, etc are mentioned, there
is no mention of raising socio-economic status, nutrition which are important
factors to prevent infections.
·
Even
while mentioning the sovereignty, the draft reminds you the limitation to your
sovereignty. And that will be defined by them!
“(10) Sovereignty – States have, in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach
to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness and response
pursuant to their own policies, and the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to other
States and their peoples.”
Role of WHO during Swine Flu
“In a strong indictment of
the World Health Organization, a report prepared for the Council of Europe has
said WHO wasted large sums of public money by raising unjustified fears of a
“pandemic that never really was” and expressed concern over the influence of
the pharmaceutical industry on the decisions taken by it regarding the H1N1
virus outbreak.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6013135.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
“National governments, WHO,
and EU agencies had all been guilty of actions that led to a “waste of large sums of public money, and
unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European
public,” says the report.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c3033.full
“The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a
"Golden Triangle" of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry
and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and
even caused death.”
Our experience during Covid
also reaffirms our belief to insulate ourselves from these commercial external and
internal interests.
For a disease having 0.05%
Infection Fatality Rate, with 67.6% of adult population already having
antibodies, and 99.5% of population
never getting any symptoms of Covid in entire Two Years, the vaccination
drive of full adult population was started because of WHO advice, when many
Indian Public Health Experts had never advised, lockdown for the whole country,
vaccine for below 45 years of age. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/shots-for-18-44-yr-group-was-a-political-decision/articleshow/82812610.cms
)
Height
of ignoring Indian experts and without any transparent public
debate came when vaccine roll out for children, having none whatsoever risk
from Covid, was started, just because it was given in other countries, in spite
of a clear NO from NTAGI. Waste of public money for injecting a substance whose
long-term safety data is not known and even short-term data cannot be relied
with such small sample size during Trials.
The health requirements,
priorities of all countries are different depending on the climatic, cultural,
economic and demographic conditions. Imposing western models on our country is
Medical Imperialism and has proved damaging to our country
The signing IHR after SARS
Cov (2003) was uncalled for, as a so-called highly infectious virus had
infected totally 8098 persons world over and total 774 deaths, in the country
of its origin, China - 5327 cases and 349 deaths. It was believed to have
started in Nov, 2002 and with all the international traffic, the world came to
know a few cases elsewhere also by March 2003.
But signing WHO Treaty and
to formulate a Public Health Act on the basis of such international guidelines
will be suicidal.
About the author:
Dr.
Maya Valecha, MD(Gynae) based in Vododara, Gujarat has been active in left
politics since her student days. She participated actively in Nav Nirman
Aandolan in Gujarat with left perspective, Actively fought communal forces in
2002 & has been a staunch feminist. She did her research work on how women’s attire is
oppressive in nature.
She
fiercely opposed slum Demolition without any opportunity for alternative
residence & livlihood in Baroda and Surat and the struggle was waged successfully.
She
left medical practice as a gynaecologist
by 2000 to fully get involved in socio-political activities.
From
the very onset of lockdown, on one hand she has been building public opinion
for Nationalisation Socialisation of Healthcare system including drug industry
and spreading the truth about Covid-19, on the other hand.
Comments
Post a Comment