Greetings Esteemed

Dear Esteemed,

I am protesting the latest draft for the Pandemic Treaty which was released August 29, 2024. Issues include the following:

1. INB has not responded to requests from certain civil society stakeholders and as a result the process is not inclusive and fails to include all interested and  relevant stakeholders in the drafting of the instrument.

2. The definition of \"Pandemic Emergency\" is not harmonious to the scientific concept of a \"case\" which requires symptoms. The definition if left intact from this version would allow improper and false diagnostics to be perceived incorrectly as if it were a real public health emergency.

3. We oppose the definition of PHEIC because the definition of extraordinary has not been refined with a precise threshold for what is the meaning of \"extraordinary\"

4. I oppose the definition of a public health risk which is too ambiguous and vague to have any use.

5. I oppose the definition of pandemic related health products being called safe effective or quality whilst still under any emergency use listing (EUL) which has not been approved by a competent authority and under international law should be considered and experiment or investigational use outside a clinical trial. Products that have not been licensed should never be used as mass use or considered a pandemic- related health product.

6. I oppose article 13.1 to enhance equitable access to pandemic related health products. Our organization strongly urges \"Ethical\" over \"equitable\". So far these programs are implemented in a manner that violates the rules of ethics in a mad rush to ensure \"equitable\" access \"An experimental needle in every arm\", which may constitute \"Crimes Against Humanity\" rather than a beneficial intervention.

7. We oppose Article 20.3 - Establishing the financial mechanisms. Because the advisors are not made public with full audits and transparency when advising because the conference of parties the conference of parties.

8. We oppose the mechanism for funding because it allows private funders with conflicts of interest  under \"voluntary contributions\" which are not able to be audited or fully transparent.

9. We reject article 21.7 - because the conference of parties is a different governance body than the IHR, meaning that the two instruments have differences in membership of each instrument and it\'s governing body which will lead to lack of harmonization. Our recommendation is that there should be an oversight committee consisting of Civil Society that ensures the harmonisation of both instruments to current International law and human rights norms. We are very concerned about the monopolisation of the coordination of these instruments.

For these reasons and because the process itself is contentious, we oppose/reject the draft documents presented during INB 11, 2024.

source: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-11.html 

Thank you,

Cordially,

%%your signature%%