2023 United Nations & World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaties & their effect on Human Rights

Publications & Resources

Jodie Bruning has joined a delegation on behalf of the PSGR, asking that key officials pay attention to new and binding International Health Regulation amendments (IHRAs). Historically, the risk relating to an infectious disease event is highly contingent upon the extent to which an infectious agent presents a risk of hospitalisation and death to local populations, and in particular, to vulnerable sub-populations.

The precedent of COVID-19 suggests that global action will be taken on the bases of infectivity or a claimed risk which is identified by authorities in Geneva, rather than the potential for an event to cause hospitalisation and death in New Zealand. The extent to which an infectious agent moves from being a driver of death and disease is geographically and temporally dependent as well as dependent on the age, economic and health status of local populations. Viral mutations can swiftly down-regulate the potential for the infectious agent to drive hospitalisation and death. As such interventions must be highly sensitive to local factors.

If interventions are not sensitive to local factors, there is a risk that a given suite of interventions may cause more harm than good. An important cofactor in an infectious disease epidemic is the potential for anti-viral therapeutics with a long history of safe use to be deployed. Reducing viral transmission at an early stage using therapeutics that have a long history of safe use is of particular relevance to elderly and frail populations who have vulnerable immune systems, and consume a large variety of medications and whose immune systems may respond poorly to vaccination. Consideration must also encompass natural immunity in local populations, and the potential for a virus to quickly mutate and evade vaccines that may have been developed using an outdated strain.

As was found with COVID-19 and early research on infectivity, vaccination was found to not be able to stem transmission, and indeed to increase risk to infection in vulnerable groups after repeat injection. While globally a global biomedical answer is promoted as desirable, it is the individual differences across vulnerable sub-populations that result in a likely low efficacy of a given biomedical injection. However, authorities globally were reluctant to address these issues, despite being widely recognised in the scientific literature.

We observed during the COVID-19 pandemic a mandating of vaccination for healthy populations. It is unprecedented that healthy populations must submit to a biotechnology and raises issues of human rights concerns.

PSGR support wider discussion on this topic. However, it appears that COVID-19 is seen as a precedent by some actors to go 'harder and faster' in the next pandemic.

Instead, we suggest that local considerations are critical in any high-risk event. We consider that steps taken in Geneva to create broad and binding agreements which likely reduce the autonomy of Parliament and New Zealand citizens and residents, is cause for concern, and that United Nations and WHO measures to create binding agreements deserve much more public scrutiny than is currently given.

PRESS RELEASE November 6, 2023: December 1 deadline looms

An urgent bid to escape an international power grab.

New Zealanders are raising real concerns about the World Health Organization’s (WHO) bid for global control of future outbreaks of an infectious pathogen it considers a potential health risk.

A group of concerned citizens is drawing the Attorney General and the Human Rights Commissioner ’s attention to the International Health Regulation amendments (IHRAs) that will shorten the time frame for consideration of substantive IHRAs due for agreement at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA). The WHO Pandemic treaty is also due to be ready for adoption at the May 2024 WHA.

Most New Zealanders are unaware that some amendments have already been adopted and considered fine by NZ’s Cabinet held early September 2023 and confirmed by a caretaker Cabinet mid-October (after the election but before the new government is confirmed).

Parts of the regulations will automatically come into effect,1 December 2023, unless expressly rejected by our government. The regulations allow for tacit acceptance, or acceptance by a government staying silent. That is, these IHRAs become binding, without reservation, unless expressly rejected, or reserved, by a member state.

The IHRAs that require rejection or reservation by 1 December 2023 dramatically reduce the timeframes for review, rejection and implementation of future IHRAs amendments.

Why this is a concern is what is currently proposed in amendments for adoption mid next year is, the WHO’s recommendations will no longer be non-binding advice or suggestions, ones New Zealand could take or leave. The proposed substantive IHRAs and Pandemic treaty will shift the WHO nations to global agreements that will bind New Zealand to decisions made by the Director General of the WHO and unelected officials in Geneva about any risk to public health (perceived or real).

Do WHO staff in Geneva know what is best for citizens of Whangarei or Otago?

The concerned citizens put their case this week to the Human Rights Commissioner and the Attorney General, their letters are attached.

Spokesperson for the group Katie Ashby-Koppens said “We raise concerns in respect to the four treaties that are at various stages of completeness that are being negotiated under urgency, behind closed doors, by unelected officials.”

She went on to say that this was a problem because “The current versions of the treaties hand the WHO the authority to order individual countries to lockdown, implement vaccine passes, restrict travel, require mandatory vaccination, force medical examinations and censor scientific debate.”

The concerned citizens have sought a response from both the Attorney-General and the Human Rights Commissioner by 24 November 2023, given the very important issues that concern all New Zealanders.

The Delegation To Wellington:

Dr Simon Thornley, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland
Martin Lally (Director, and former Associate Professor in Finance at Victoria University of Wellington)
Dr Alison Goodwin (President, New Zealand Medical Professionals' Society)
Dr Anne O'Rielly (Vice-President, New Zealand Medical Professionals' Society)
Dr Cindy de Villiers (New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science)
Aku Huia Kaimanawa (Midwives Collective)
Jodie Bruning (MA Sociology, Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR.org.nz))
Katie Ashby-Koppens (Qualified Barrister and Solicitor of New Zealand)
Keri Molloy (Journalist)
Lynda Wharton (The Health Forum NZ)

PRESS RELEASE November 6, 2023: December 1 deadline looms

An urgent bid to escape an international power grab.

Information

Providing scientific & medical information & analysis in the service of the public's right to be independently informed on issues relating to human & environmental health.