- Scientists claim WHO “colonialist tendencies”
- Fear forced lockdowns, harm to economies
- Demand WHO power examination
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) initiatives towards a novel pandemic treaty have drawn allegations of “colonialist tendencies.
A coalition of scientists from Africa is concerned that the agreement could force nations into lockdowns at the agency’s discretion.
The WHO, whose management of COVID-19 was severely criticized, is contemplating 300 amendments to its legally binding manual.
However, the group is concerned that one measure proposed by the UN agency could allow member states to be compelled to adhere to recommendations made during subsequent pandemics, such as implementing border closures and vaccine passports.
Lockdowns, according to the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group, are an “unscientific and class-based instrument.”
They allegedly inflicted “considerable damage” on low-income countries.
The group argued that African nations ought to have the capacity to give precedence to addressing their significant public health challenges, such as malaria, yellow fever, and cholera.
The coalition supported disgraced Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen’s investigation into COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries and stated that the proposals endanger “economic independence” and “health sovereignty.
The organization is particularly demanding an examination of the revised agreement that grants the World Health Organisation the authority to designate a disease as a pandemic or a public health emergency of international concern.
They stated that consideration should be given to these new powers.
An Africa-sensitive approach should prevail over the progressively colonialist approach adopted by the current agenda-setters of the World Health Organisation.
“A class-based and unscientific instrument, the lockdown regulations, which were implemented during Covid and continue to be reinforced in the draft instruments, caused significant collateral damage to low-income people and were ineffective in densely populated informal settings, such as urban areas of Africa.”
Senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, Reginald Oduor, further stated, “This is an indirect continuation of classical Western imperialism.”
Suprematizing knowledge from other regions and assuming that medical innovations and understanding of COVID or other pandemics must originate from developed countries or Geneva constitutes health imperialism.
“We must advocate for multiple centers of knowledge for this reason.” It is the privilege of every society to develop its innovations.
In one treaty version, nations would “adhere to the World Health Organization’s recommendations regarding their global public health efforts.”
Its objective is to prevent a recurrence of what South Africa termed “vaccine apartheid,” a period in which countries had colossally unequal access to COVID-19 vaccines and medicines, and to prepare for the next global health emergency.
The WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) committee is expected to reach a consensus on amendments to be presented to the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in May.
It follows a May letter from six Members of Parliament to the Foreign Office requesting that any new WHO powers that could prescribe British policy and budgets be blocked.
Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey cautioned that the powers would transform the organization, which critics called “China’s puppet,” from a “member-led advisory body to a health authority with coercive powers.”
In light of the concerns, the government steadfastly maintained its stance that it “would never consent to anything that violates our fundamental principles regarding sovereignty.
WHO Treaty and COVID-19 Controversies
Furthermore, according to the government, the treaty “has no provisions” that would authorize the WHO to require vaccinations, lockdowns, or mandatory quarantines.
The agency has faced criticism for endorsing China’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, its delayed designation of the outbreak as an international emergency, and its recommendation that nations refrain from implementing travel restrictions.
“Unlock your financial potential with free Webull shares in the UK.”
Its investigation into the origins of COVID-19, which a team of scientists traveled to Wuhan to conduct in January 2021, concluded that “all hypotheses remain on the table.”
It subsequently evaluated the probability of four prevalent theories in its March 2021 report, concluding that the natural origins theory was the most probable.
However, it deemed the lab breach an “extremely improbable pathway” underlying the origin of the frozen food.
Subsequently, a new investigation was initiated, as stated by its director-general: “All hypotheses remain unresolved and necessitate additional research.”
The lab breach theory, previously disregarded as a complete fabrication, has garnered growing support in the years following the initial outbreak of the global pandemic caused by the virus.
However, there has never been conclusive evidence to support any origin theory, leaving experts to speculate that the truth will never be revealed.
