From LifeSiteNews

By Reggie Littlejohn

The Pandemic Treaty will likely lead to dangerous lab leaks, digitals IDs, censorship, and other threats – and it will still affect the US even after leaving the WHO.

Does the passage of the WHO Pandemic Agreement on May 20, 2025, create the framework to usher in a new era of globalist control, masquerading as health care? Even though the United States and Argentina have withdrawn from the WHO, will we nevertheless be affected by its machinations? These questions are of critical concern. Here are six paramount threats posed by the new Treaty. 

• National Sovereignty. This treaty represents a threat to national sovereignty by establishing an unelected, unaccountable globalist organization at the helm of international health care policy and implementation, “[r]ecognizing that the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work …” (Preamble, emphasis added). The treaty further expands the WHO’s purview not only to exercising its authority during actual pandemics, but also during potential pandemics (Article 1 (C)) and during the times between pandemics (Article 2(2)) – in other words, at all times, in perpetuity. Further, nations are expected to amend their domestic legal and regulatory frameworks in alignment with the Treaty, further eroding national sovereignty. (Article 8; Article 11 (6)

• Censorship. The Treaty requires nations to “prevent misinformation [and] disinformation.” (Preamble, page 6). “Misinformation and disinformation” are not defined in the Treaty, but we can discern what it will mean from the WHO’s behavior during the COVID-19 outbreak. Hence, preventing “misinformation and disinformation” will likely include censoring any information that differs from the official WHO narrative, even if true: for example, dissenting voices stating that the COVID-19 virus spreads via human-to-human transmission or that it emerged from a lab leak, which facts the WHO denied at the inception of the outbreak. How will governments “prevent” these dissenting voices except by surveillance and censorship? To do so would constitute a clear violation of the right to free speech. Restricting access to accurate data further subverts national sovereignty and personal medical freedom. How can nations or individuals make sovereign decisions over their medical affairs if they cannot access correct information? 

• Digital IDs. The Treaty requires nations to endeavor to develop “national health information systems” utilizing “international data standards for interoperability” (Article 6 (3)), as well as “technical and digital health resources.” (Preamble). While digital health IDs are not specifically mentioned in the Treaty, the framework for these is set forth in the Amended International Health Regulations (Articles 35 and 36; Annex 6). WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus announced the launch of the WHO-EU Global Health Certification Network on June 5, 2023. These digital health IDs may serve as the precursor to a broader digital ID. For a fuller expression of the proposed capacities of digital IDs, see this chart included in an article posted on the website of the World Economic Forum. This chart reveals that digital IDs may be required to access health care, open a bank account, buy and sell online, travel, access social media, file taxes, vote, collect government benefits, and to own a telecommunications device (such as a cell phone or laptop). Is the ultimate goal to set up a global biotech surveillance police state that could track citizens under the pretext of global health, similar to the China Social Credit System?

• One Health. The One Health Approach, “recognizing that the health of people is interconnected with animal health and the environment” (Article 5), including domestic animals (Introduction). This interconnectedness can lead to surveillance and control of virtually every aspect of life on earth. An article in The Lancet entitled “One Health: a call for ecological equity” states: “The consequences of this thinking entail a subtle but quite revolutionary shift of perspective: all life is equal, and of equal concern.” Are human lives really “equal and of equal concern” to the lives of cockroaches or crabgrass? 

• Expedited Approval of Vaccines. The Treaty requires nations to “strengthen” domestic regulations in order to ensure that they have the “legal, financial and administrative frameworks” necessary to fast track the approval of vaccines and other medications, potentially short-circuiting important safety and testing protocols. (Article 8 – formerly Article 14).

• Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System. Perhaps most chilling, the Treaty sets up the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System (PABS) to “promot[e] the rapid and timely sharing of ‘materials and sequence information on pathogens with pandemic potential.’” (Article 12). This system will concentrate all the world’s most deadly pathogens into the hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party and the pharmaceutical industry. The WHO may then share them with labs all over the world, ostensibly to develop vaccines, diagnostics, and other “treatments.”

The WHO and Switzerland have already established a partnership for a global “WHO Biohub System,” the purpose of which is “to create a fast and reliable system for sharing materials that could cause epidemics or pandemics.” This system poses a significant risk of escalating the chances of pandemics caused by lab leaks as well as bio-terrorist attacks. These in turn will greatly increase the profits of the pharmaceutical industry and will give governments so inclined the pretext to keep people under lockdown and deprive them of their constitutional rights. 

It is concerning that the details of how this system will function – its “modalities, legal nature, terms and conditions and operational dimensions” are not in the Pandemic Treaty itself. Rather, these “shall be developed and agreed in an instrument … as an annex.” (Article 12 (2)). In other words, the heart of the PABS system – and arguably, of the Treaty itself – has been left undefined. The WHO has kicked this heavy can down the road.

That being said, under what authority did the WHO establish the WHO Biohub System? The Pandemic Treaty failed to make it to the floor for a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly. On June 13, 2024 – the date of the BioHub System press release – the Treaty, which is supposed to govern the PABS System, would not be adopted for almost a year, and the Annex to set forth the details still has not been negotiated. And yet, the WHO went right ahead and launched its BioHub System, doing what the PABS System is designed to do. Since the BioHub System preexists PABS, will it be governed by it? In the alternative, did the WHO commit an end-run around its member states, advancing the illusion that they will determine how PABS will be governed, when, in actuality, the WHO will do whatever it pleases, ultra vires, regardless of any Treaty or Annex?  

Even though the U.S. and Argentina have withdrawn from the WHO, these nations will still be affected by the Pandemic Treaty – especially the constant stream of lab leaks that will likely result from the PABS system. Pandemics know no borders. We can also be affected by whatever travel restrictions may be imposed by other countries, consistent with the Treaty. 

The Pandemic Treaty is dangerous on numerous fronts, and we need to continue to expose and oppose it, internationally. It is not a done deal. Even though the Treaty was adopted on May 20, 2025, it will not be open for signature until after the Annex articulating the details of the PABS system is also adopted – probably at the World Health Assembly in May of 2026. In addition, it will need to be ratified by at least 60 member nations. Therefore, failure either to come to agreement on the PABS annex or to reach 60 ratifications would stymie its entry into force. 

Other nations should see the withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO as a clarion call and consider taking similar action. We need a consortium of free nations collaborating to address global health concerns, without the interference of the irredeemably corrupt World Health Organization. 

Treaty apologists point to Article 22 (2) to support the proposition that the Treaty will not affect national sovereignty. This section, however, is craftily worded and disingenuous. It pertains only to the Secretariat and the Director General, not to other WHO-related bodies, such as, for example, the Conference of the Parties, responsible for the “effective implementation” of the Treaty. (Article 19 (2)). Further, these apologists ignore the resounding impact that WHO pronouncements have on numerous governments, many of which follow WHO recommendations as though having the force of law. 

Brock Chisholm, the first director general of the World Health Organization, once stated: “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Chisholm said the quiet part out loud. If “to achieve world government” was the goal of the first Director General of the WHO, then it would be naïve of us to believe that our national sovereignty and personal freedom are not at risk. 

Take action by signing the Manifesto at Anti-Globalist International. 

A graduate of Yale Law School, attorney Reggie Littlejohn is founder and president of Anti-Globalist International and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. She is co-founder of the Sovereignty Coalition.