The following article is probably one of the first to be published in mainstream media speaking about how a pandemic treaty enforced by the World Health Organization (WHO) would be problematic. It was written by Matt Ridley and was published by The Telegraph last May 14, 2022. Ridley is a journalist and co-author of the book Viral: The Search For The Origin of COVID-19 which, according to the Wall Street Journal, offers “perhaps the most comprehensive case for the lab-leak theory”.

In this article, Ridley points out the organization’s poor performance in previous epidemics and lists down the many mistakes made by the WHO during the “COVID pandemic”. He goes on to question the WHO’s decision to patronize the failed strategies employed by the Chinese government and the organization’s role in preventing the world from knowing the true origins of COVID.

He asks the important question: “Lessons have not been learned, so why should we trust the WHO in a future pandemic?”

Ridley comments that a legally binding pandemic treaty is impossible to pass because the American Senate would need a two-thirds majority to ratify it, and the Chinese government would not allow the WHO to tell it what to do.

Ridley adds that if there is anything that the accord must include, it is “a commitment by all national governments to share the genomic data of all viruses collected in the wild and to share details of all experiments being done on potential pandemic pathogens (yes, including in biowarfare labs)”.

Editor’s Note: Ridley did not offer an outright rejection of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, but his points are pretty important. For one, he confirms that the Treaty could impede on the sovereignty of countries. Second, he says that the WHO cannot be trusted with power this big.

It is important to note that while the governments of the UK, US, and China can undermine the power of the WHO, the same cannot be said of the Philippines. Currently, even without the treaty, the influence of the WHO as a representative of Big Pharma in the Philippines is already massive.

Consider this: despite the evidence from various countries and testimonies from doctors proving that Ivermectin works, the Philippine government has decided to stop the local clinical trial for the drug despite its giving its commitment to do so last year.^[1]Ivermectin clinical trial in PH will no longer push through The reason: the supposed lack of clinical benefits of the drug as stated in recent months. But if we will all remember, local doctors have been pushing back against this lie, hence the reason why they called for a local clinical trial in order to determine the efficacy of the drug for the Filipinos. The initial approval given by the government was nothing more than a strategy to silence the buzz made by the doctors [Read more at Breaking News! Duque Allows Use of Ivermectin by Doctors, Ivermectin not illegal, PNP and Malacañang agree to stop going after legit ivermectin sellers, Phil governors call for use of Ivermectin, Bacolod Council to study Ivermectin as possible COVID treatment, Ramon Tulfo speaks about Ivermectin, asks Phil. Health secretary and head of FDA to resign for alleged corruption].

Of course, the WHO has been instrumental in the imposition and prolonging of lockdowns.^[2]https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1252015/who-cautions-ph-govt-on-lifting-luzon-lockdown Also, long before the COVID shots were made, the WHO has already advised the Philippines “to set up mechanisms that would help expedite the processing, accreditation, and deployment of the vaccine”^[3]https://www.thestar.com.my/news/regional/2020/04/28/who-tells-philippines-to–prepare-for-covid-19-vaccine without even looking at the other effective strategies being employed by other countries.

So yes, we agree with Ridley that an international accord must be made to force governments to divulge gain-of-function researches that could potentially cause another disease outbreak. But no, we don’t agree that this accord should be a pandemic treaty. A treaty that puts WHO in charge of any decision-making on behalf of our legally elected officials must be rejected.

Read Original Article