from Your News:
The World Health Organization has finalized the text of a legally binding global pandemic treaty, drawing backlash over sovereignty, corporate influence, and enforcement gaps ahead of a formal vote at the World Health Assembly.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Members of the World Health Organization (WHO) have agreed on the text of a legally binding treaty aimed at improving global pandemic response coordination. The treaty, concluded after three years of negotiation, mandates that countries ensure global access to pandemic-related drugs and requires manufacturers to allocate 20 percent of their production to the WHO, with at least 10 percent as donations. Formal adoption is expected at the upcoming World Health Assembly next month.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the agreement “a significant milestone in our shared journey towards a safer world,” while U.S. negotiators abstained from the final talks following President Donald J. Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the WHO, effective in 2026.
The treaty introduces a proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS) to accelerate data exchange for vaccine and treatment development. It also grants the WHO broader insight into global supply chains of personal protective equipment.
Critics have voiced concerns about the treaty’s links to private entities and figures such as Bill Gates, citing the risk of transferring control of medical research to corporations and exacerbating profit-driven healthcare. Global health consultant Nina Schwalbe noted the treaty lacks strong enforcement mechanisms, warning, “There’s no way to compel nations to share, which means history could repeat itself.”
A central point of contention is the requirement that member countries surrender 10% of their vaccine and treatment production to the WHO, with another 10% offered at subsidized rates. While framed as equitable, critics argue this provision undermines national sovereignty and production autonomy. Anne-Claire Amprou, France’s global health ambassador, defended the measure as “a fair give-and-take,” but concerns remain about the balance of power among nations.
Additional skepticism surrounds the treaty’s vague commitments to open-source research and technology sharing. Although public health authorities may mandate pandemic-related research transparency, absent strict penalties, compliance largely depends on goodwill. Health freedom advocates warn that the treaty could further entrench Big Pharma’s influence, particularly in low-income nations.
The U.S.’s withdrawal marks a significant shift in global health governance. Without the world’s largest biopharma producer on board, pandemic readiness efforts may face new challenges. Neil Vora of the Preventing Pandemics at the Source Coalition emphasized, “Pathogens respect no borders,” expressing concern about the U.S. absence.
Power dynamics are also shifting, as countries like China, Brazil, and G7 states gain more influence over pandemic preparedness strategies. Despite China’s past opacity regarding outbreaks, the treaty signals a broader move toward multilateral oversight. Still, critics remain wary of China’s pledges to improve transparency.
Opposition to the treaty spans political divides. Libertarian groups and left-wing activists alike view the agreement as either an international overreach or insufficient protection against corporate dominance. Concerns persist that institutions like the WHO are politicizing health crises at the expense of smaller nations.
