Has WHO claimed success but pulled another fast one?

Why the secrecy?

Has the WHO fooled us again? As it did with the IHR amendments, where virtually every bad provision was jettisoned by the end in order to get an agreement signed—but the final IHR agreement did not mean much. [However, it did provide a framework that could be built on later to use public health to centralize control.]

Why the secrecy about what was decided? Probably to save face for the negotiators that finalized a meaningless document, while pretending to have accomplished something huge?

I asked Gemini to find the final language to be agreed upon, but all it came up with is info from a day old article:

Based on the available reports, particularly from Health Policy Watch, the final area to be “greened” (meaning the last point of contention to reach consensus) during the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meeting on April 15, 2025, appears to have been Article 11, which deals with the transfer of technology for pandemic health products.

Negotiations reportedly stumbled on this article right until the last minute, with disagreements lingering over the terms of technology transfer. Wealthier countries with large pharmaceutical industries had resisted mandatory tech transfers, advocating for them to be voluntary.

Ultimately, it seems the obstacle was overcome by adding a condition that any technology transfer needed to be “mutually agreed.” This compromise allowed the entire 32-page agreement to be highlighted in green, signifying full approval by WHO member states.

The AP ran a story 2 hours ago. It suggests there was no agreement on technology and medicines transfer, and that negotiations must continue, but that there were also no provisions forcing countries to obey the WHO’s directives.

The first half looks like a press release, and the second half is based on a meager report from an NGO that was following the proceedings: https://apnews.com/article/who-pandemic-treaty-covid-trump-9003e25d3a9dda95277a9f79cbf77a1d

LONDON (AP) — Five years after COVID-19 triggered national lockdowns, economic uncertainty and killed millions, the World Health Organization’s member countries agreed on a draft “pandemic treaty” that sets guidelines for how the international community might confront the next global health crisis.

After the world’s largely disastrous response to the coronavirus, countries tasked the WHO with overseeing a pandemic treaty in 2021; negotiations concluded early Wednesday on an agreement expected to be adopted next month at the U.N. health agency’s annual meeting in Geneva.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus heralded it as a historic moment, saying countries have proven that “in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground and a shared response.”

Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the country from the WHO in January, American officials were barred from participating in the talks and are not expected to sign the treaty. During COVID-19, it was largely American research and development that produced the most effective vaccines and medicines.

Weeks after Trump’s decision, Argentina’s President Javier Milei also exited the WHO, citing “profound differences” with the U.N. agency.

Rachael Crockett, of the advocacy group Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, described the draft pandemic treaty as “a product of compromise.” She said it contained strong provisions, but only if countries chose to implement them. “This could change what we saw in COVID, when some populations didn’t get access to what they needed.”

The draft treaty notably includes a provision to guarantee that countries that share critical virus samples receive any resulting tests, medicines and vaccines, with the WHO to hold up to 20% of such products to ensure poorer countries get supplies. Negotiations on this provision are expected to continue after the treaty is likely accepted by member countries in May.

Crockett acknowledged that as is often the case with international law, there are few consequences for countries that don’t comply: “There’s not much that can be done if countries choose not to ratify or abide by it.”

Yuanqiong Hu, of aid organization Doctors Without Borders, said that if disputes arise between countries, the treaty includes a mechanism for them to use diplomatic channels, followed by arbitration. [So what?—Nass]

Countries are already legally bound by the International Health Regulations to do things like quickly report dangerous new outbreaks. But those have been flouted repeatedly, including by African countries during Ebola and other outbreaks, China in the early stages of COVID-19 and arguably the U.S. amid its ongoing bird flu epidemic.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.