Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

WHO member states agree on draft of ‘pandemic treaty’ that could be adopted in May

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

The WHO draft ‘pandemic accord’ includes data sharing between governments and pharmaceutical companies to develop ‘pandemic-related health products,’ though it would not apply to the US.

Representatives of WHO member states have agreed on a draft of the “pandemic accord” that is scheduled to be voted on next month.

“The nations of the world made history in Geneva today,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, said after the member states agreed on the draft of the pandemic treaty on Wednesday.

“In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did they put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats. I thank WHO’s Member States, and their negotiating teams, for their foresight, commitment and tireless work. We look forward to the World Health Assembly’s consideration of the agreement and – we hope – its adoption,” the WHO leader continued.

The agreement was reached by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), the committee set up by the WHO to negotiate the treaty, after more than three years of negotiations.

According to the WHO’s press release, the core pandemic treaty draft includes the establishment of “a pathogen access and benefit sharing system,” allowing the sharing of data between governments and pharmaceutical companies aimed at quickly developing and supplying “pandemic-related health products” during a pandemic. These “health products” could be dangerous mRNA injections, similar to those rolled out and imposed on large parts of the world population during the COVID-19 crisis.

The WHO claims that the “proposal affirms the sovereignty of countries to address public health matters within their borders, and provides that nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or prescribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”

The WHO seems to be responding to critics of the Pandemic Treaty, who have argued it is a power grab by the WHO. It would give the global organization unchecked power whenever it declares that any health risk is a “pandemic.” However, the new draft has not yet been made public, making a thorough assessment impossible.

WHO director-general Ghebreyesus engaged in his typical fear-mongering, stating, “Virus is the worst enemy. (It) could be worse than a war.”

READ: WHO director Tedros calls for ‘more aggressive’ action against COVID shot critics

While the WHO pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) failed to pass last year, the new version of the agreement could be passed by a two-thirds majority at the annual World Health Assembly (May 19-27, 2025) next month.

However, the U.S. was not part of the negotiations and would not be bound by the agreement since President Donald Trump withdrew the country from the international body in January 2025 after taking office for his second term. Argentine President Javier Milei announced in February that his country will also leave the WHO, following Trump’s example. If more countries were to leave the WHO, the pandemic agreement could be ineffective in practice, even if it were to pass in May.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Health

MAHA report: Chemicals, screens, and shots—what’s really behind the surge in sick kids

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Health Secretary RFK Jr. released a new report Thursday blaming diet, chemicals, inactivity, and overmedication for chronic illnesses now impacting 40% of U.S. children.

Key Details:

  • The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report identified four primary culprits: ultra-processed diets, environmental chemicals, sedentary lifestyles, and overreliance on pharmaceuticals.

  • The commission called for renewed scrutiny of vaccine safety, arguing there has been “limited scientific inquiry” into links between immunizations and chronic illness.

  • President Trump called the findings “alarming” and pledged to take on entrenched interests: “We will not be silenced or intimidated by corporate lobbyists or special interests.”

Diving Deeper:

On Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a long-anticipated report from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, outlining what the Trump administration sees as the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic among American children. The commission concluded that roughly 40% of U.S. children now suffer from some form of persistent health issue, including obesity, autism, mental health disorders, and autoimmune diseases.

The report identifies four leading contributors: poor nutrition, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and time outdoors, and overmedicalization of childhood ailments. One of the most alarming statistics cited is the extent to which children’s diets are now composed of what the commission called “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs), with 70% of a typical child’s diet made up of high-calorie, low-nutrient products that contain additives like artificial dyes, sweeteners, preservatives, and engineered fats.

“Whole foods grown and raised by American farmers must be the cornerstone of our children’s healthcare,” the commission urged. It also criticized government-supported programs like school lunches and food stamps for failing to encourage healthy choices, while noting that countries like Italy and Portugal have far lower consumption of UPFs.

The report also raised red flags about widespread chemical exposure through water, air, household items, and personal products. Items of concern included nonstick cookware, pesticides, cleaning supplies, and even fluoride in the water system. The commission referenced research indicating a 50% increase in microplastics found in human brain tissue between 2016 and 2024. It recommended that the U.S. lead in developing AI tools to monitor and mitigate chemical exposure.

Electromagnetic radiation from devices such as phones and laptops was also flagged as a potential contributor to rising disease rates, alongside a marked drop in physical activity among youth. Data cited from the American Heart Association shows 60% of adolescents aged 12-15 do not meet healthy cardiovascular benchmarks, and the majority of children aged 6-17 do not meet federal exercise guidelines.

The commission also tackled what it called a dangerous trend of overmedicating children without considering environmental or lifestyle factors first. Roughly 20% of U.S. children are on at least one prescription medication, including for ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

The commission specifically called out the American Medical Association’s recent stance on curbing health “disinformation,” arguing that it suppresses legitimate inquiry into vaccine safety and efficacy. It further noted that over half of European countries do not mandate vaccinations for school attendance, unlike all 50 U.S. states.

Trump, who established the MAHA Commission by executive order in February, signaled full support for Kennedy’s findings. “In some cases, it won’t be nice or it won’t be pretty, but we have to do it,” he said. “We will not stop until we defeat the chronic disease epidemic in America.”

Policy recommendations based on the report are expected to be delivered to President Trump by August. Among the initial proposals are expanded surveillance of pediatric prescriptions, creation of a national lifestyle trial program, and a new AI-driven system to detect early signs of chronic illness in children.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Don’t stop now—Alberta government should enact more health-care reform

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

It’s unusual to see a provincial government take on health-care reform. But not so in Alberta, where major reforms have been underway for almost a year. The province has long struggled with lengthy waits for non-emergency care and a majority (58 per cent) of Albertans last year were unsatisfied with the government’s handling of health care.

And who could blame them?

The median wait last year in Alberta was 19.2 weeks to see a specialist (after getting a referral from a family doctor) followed by the same amount of time to receive treatment. This combined 38.4-week wait marked the longest delay for non-emergency care in Alberta since data were first published more than 30 years ago. Also last year, an estimated 208,000 patients waited for care in Alberta. These waits are not benign and can result in prolonged pain and discomfort, psychological distress, and can impact our ability to work and earn money.

In fact, according to our new study, last year health-care wait times in Alberta cost patients $778 million—or more than $3,700 per-patient waiting. This estimate, however, doesn’t include leisure time after work or on weekends. When this time was included in the calculation, the total cost of these waits balloons to more than $2.3 billion or around $11,000 per patient.

Again, to its credit, the Smith government has not shied away from reform. It’s reorganized one of province’s largest employers (Alberta Health Services) with the goal of improving health-care delivery, it plans to change how hospitals are funded to deliver more care, and it continues to contract out publicly funded surgeries to private clinics. Here, the government should look at expanding, based on the success the Saskatchewan Surgical Initiative (SSI), which helped increase that province’s surgical capacity by delivering publicly funded surgeries through private clinics and shortened the median health-care wait from 26.5 weeks in 2010 to 14.2 weeks by 2014.

The SSI also “pooled” referrals in Saskatchewan together and allowed patients to choose which specialist they wanted to see for treatment, and patients received estimates of how long they would wait before choosing.

In Alberta, however, family doctors still refer patients to one specific specialist at a time yet remain potentially unaware of other appropriate doctors with shorter waits. But if Alberta also put specialist wait lists and referrals into one list, and provided updated wait times information, a family doctor could help patients choose a specialist with a shorter wait time. Or better yet, if Albertans could access that information online with an Alberta health card, they could make that decision on their own while working with their family doctor.

Make no mistake, change is in the air for health care in Alberta. And while key policy changes are now underway, the Smith government should consider more options while this window for reform remains open.

Continue Reading

Trending

X