A U.S. think tank is questioning the legitimacy of amendments to International Health Regulations made by the made by the World Health Organization on June 1.In a recent analysis, the Brownstone Institute said negotiations surrounding the amendments were "polemic, operating in a political environment that has largely stifled democratic deliberation, wider scientific and political consultation, and ultimately, legitimacy."Although the legacy IHR (2005) says proposed changes must be finalized four months in advance of a vote (Art 55, Para 2), the text put to a vote was not available to the delegates of the World Health Assembly until the afternoon of the decision."This raises important questions about whether these eleventh-hour additions are based on sound evidentiary rationales and wider public health benefits, or whether they merely allow for a further concentration and potential misuse of power," the Brownstone report explains.The IHRs are a set of rules for combating infectious diseases and acute health emergencies that are binding under international law, last revised in 2005.An initial compilation of reform proposals from December 2022 suggested that recommendations made by the WHO Director-General during an emergency would effectively become orders for member nations. However, international backlash left the new IHR reforms significantly weakened."Nevertheless, they still contain some worrying points. For example, there is the introduction of a 'pandemic emergency' whose definition is highly unspecific and whose consequences remain unclear, as well as new sections on increasing core competencies for public information control, capacity financing, and equitable access to vaccines," Brownstone warns.When the WHO announced the new agreement, it said the pandemic emergency would "trigger more effective international collaboration in response to events that are at risk of becoming, or have become, a pandemic. ...[at] a higher level of alarm...[than] the determination of public health emergency of international concern."The new designation would apply to an infectious pathogen with a wide geographical risk of spread that could overload health systems of affected states, and possibly have significant socio-economic impacts."This gives the WHO Director-General considerable scope for interpretation and is a reminder of how extensive restrictions on fundamental human rights were justified for over two years in many countries during the COVID-19 response, ... even at times of minimal transmission," Brownstone warns.A fourth criterion concerns Brownstone even more: "The health emergency in question 'requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.' Thus, the design of the response determines the status of the actual triggering event."The language echoes a WHO report from Wuhan in February 2020 where Chinese authorities were praised for their "all-of-government and all-of-society approach."In Brownstone's view, the new pandemic emergency designation lacks "specified consequences." Only future agreements and implementation will show what the agreement really means."Of course, what the declaration of a pandemic emergency entails may be defined later during implementation discussions between WHA signatories .... [and] may also anticipate the planned Pandemic Agreement, where greater detail may be attached to the term."The new IHR requires states to offer access to health products and services and deal with misinformation and disinformation.Benchmarks updated in December 2023 include “infodemic management," something Brownstone says has a dubious precedent."Emails published by Facebook as part of a court case reveal that the platform informed White House employees that it had inhibited the spread of posts claiming that natural immunity from infection was stronger than immunity from vaccination, even though this is very much an open question."Brownstone expressed concerns that empowered governments could stifle legitimate speech to promote "ulterior political motives" while the "information" and "disinformation" in question were not clearly identified. What political or bureaucratic body would decide the truth was another question.The financing requirement for pandemic preparedness and associated health emergencies, is currently estimated to be over $30 billion annually. Unfortunately, Brownstone alleges a new IHR funding mechanism "has only muddied the waters further," instead of bringing reform."[T]his ambiguity has created an ongoing condition ripe for politicization, weaponization, and the abandonment of meaningful and open scientific discourse and policy reflection," Brownstone said.
A U.S. think tank is questioning the legitimacy of amendments to International Health Regulations made by the made by the World Health Organization on June 1.In a recent analysis, the Brownstone Institute said negotiations surrounding the amendments were "polemic, operating in a political environment that has largely stifled democratic deliberation, wider scientific and political consultation, and ultimately, legitimacy."Although the legacy IHR (2005) says proposed changes must be finalized four months in advance of a vote (Art 55, Para 2), the text put to a vote was not available to the delegates of the World Health Assembly until the afternoon of the decision."This raises important questions about whether these eleventh-hour additions are based on sound evidentiary rationales and wider public health benefits, or whether they merely allow for a further concentration and potential misuse of power," the Brownstone report explains.The IHRs are a set of rules for combating infectious diseases and acute health emergencies that are binding under international law, last revised in 2005.An initial compilation of reform proposals from December 2022 suggested that recommendations made by the WHO Director-General during an emergency would effectively become orders for member nations. However, international backlash left the new IHR reforms significantly weakened."Nevertheless, they still contain some worrying points. For example, there is the introduction of a 'pandemic emergency' whose definition is highly unspecific and whose consequences remain unclear, as well as new sections on increasing core competencies for public information control, capacity financing, and equitable access to vaccines," Brownstone warns.When the WHO announced the new agreement, it said the pandemic emergency would "trigger more effective international collaboration in response to events that are at risk of becoming, or have become, a pandemic. ...[at] a higher level of alarm...[than] the determination of public health emergency of international concern."The new designation would apply to an infectious pathogen with a wide geographical risk of spread that could overload health systems of affected states, and possibly have significant socio-economic impacts."This gives the WHO Director-General considerable scope for interpretation and is a reminder of how extensive restrictions on fundamental human rights were justified for over two years in many countries during the COVID-19 response, ... even at times of minimal transmission," Brownstone warns.A fourth criterion concerns Brownstone even more: "The health emergency in question 'requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.' Thus, the design of the response determines the status of the actual triggering event."The language echoes a WHO report from Wuhan in February 2020 where Chinese authorities were praised for their "all-of-government and all-of-society approach."In Brownstone's view, the new pandemic emergency designation lacks "specified consequences." Only future agreements and implementation will show what the agreement really means."Of course, what the declaration of a pandemic emergency entails may be defined later during implementation discussions between WHA signatories .... [and] may also anticipate the planned Pandemic Agreement, where greater detail may be attached to the term."The new IHR requires states to offer access to health products and services and deal with misinformation and disinformation.Benchmarks updated in December 2023 include “infodemic management," something Brownstone says has a dubious precedent."Emails published by Facebook as part of a court case reveal that the platform informed White House employees that it had inhibited the spread of posts claiming that natural immunity from infection was stronger than immunity from vaccination, even though this is very much an open question."Brownstone expressed concerns that empowered governments could stifle legitimate speech to promote "ulterior political motives" while the "information" and "disinformation" in question were not clearly identified. What political or bureaucratic body would decide the truth was another question.The financing requirement for pandemic preparedness and associated health emergencies, is currently estimated to be over $30 billion annually. Unfortunately, Brownstone alleges a new IHR funding mechanism "has only muddied the waters further," instead of bringing reform."[T]his ambiguity has created an ongoing condition ripe for politicization, weaponization, and the abandonment of meaningful and open scientific discourse and policy reflection," Brownstone said.
