100 Critical Reasons to Oppose the WHO Pandemic Treaty

We have a moral obligation to one another as humans to do the right things!

I want peace for the people. Time to stop the tyranny

We must not sign the WHO Pandemic Treaty I present this formal notice and demand to all Member States of the World Health Organization regarding the proposed pandemic treaty. Having conducted a thorough analysis, I have identified 100 specific areas of concern that present persistent threats. This document serves as an official NOTICE AND DEMAND for your immediate consideration. Based on the comprehensive evidence presented herein, I formally request that you decline to adopt this treaty in its current form and give serious consideration to the substantive concerns outlined. I appreciate your prompt acknowledgment of this petition and look forward to confirmation that these critical matters will be addressed before any binding agreement is established within your respective nations. Sovereignty and Democratic Governance Perpetual Authority Beyond Emergencies: [OMISSION] No explicit limitation of authority to emergency periods only; Article 4 on “Pandemic prevention and surveillance” creates obligations applicable at all times. Vague Definition of “Pandemic”: [OMISSION] Article 1 “Use of terms” lacks precise criteria defining what constitutes a pandemic. Parliamentary Circumvention: Article 21 establishes “Conference of the Parties” with authority to “take the decisions necessary to promote effective implementation” without requiring national parliamentary approval. Mandatory Governmental Restructuring: Article 17 requires “Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches” that override constitutional separation of powers. One-Year Withdrawal Period: Article 32 states: “Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt.” Low Ratification Threshold: Article 35 requires only “60 instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession” before the treaty comes into force. Special Status for EU: Article 34 creates provisions for “regional economic integration organizations” allowing participation without being WHO members. No Deference to Constitutional Constraints: [OMISSION] No provision acknowledging that implementation must respect national constitutional limitations. Federalism Undermined: [OMISSION] No provisions respecting federal systems where health powers are constitutionally distributed across multiple levels of government. Inadequate Judicial Review: Article 25 on “Settlement of disputes” provides only that “Parties shall settle disputes… through negotiation or any other peaceful means of their own choice” without independent judicial review. Minimal Democratic Input: [OMISSION] No provisions requiring broad public consultation or democratic input in implementation. Conference of Parties Supremacy: Article 21 grants the Conference of Parties powers to “keep implementation under regular review” and “take decisions necessary to promote effective implementation.” No Legislative Oversight Requirements: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring ongoing parliamentary/congressional oversight of implementation. Secretariat Powers: Article 24 establishes that “The functions of the Secretariat shall be… to make arrangements for sessions… facilitate assistance… prepare reports… ensure coordination… perform other secretariat functions” without clear accountability mechanisms. Emergency Declaration Without Checks: [OMISSION] No requirement for independent verification or multi-stakeholder confirmation of emergency declarations. No Sunset Provisions: [OMISSION] No automatic expiration clauses requiring renewal through democratic processes. Amendments Without Universal Consent: Article 29 allows amendments to be adopted by a “two-thirds majority of the Parties present and voting,” binding dissenting nations. Permanent Institutional Architecture: Articles 21-24 create permanent governance structures without time limitations or periodic reauthorization requirements. Limited Reservations: Article 27 states “No reservations may be made to this Agreement,” preventing nations from excluding problematic provisions. Sovereignty Over Natural Resources Undermined: Article 12 establishes a “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” that conflicts with established principles of sovereignty over biological resources. Medical Ethics and Freedom Concerns Nuremberg Code Principles Omitted: [OMISSION] No reference to the Nuremberg Code or its principles regarding voluntary informed consent for medical interventions. Siracusa Principles Excluded: [OMISSION] No incorporation of Siracusa Principles regarding proportionality and necessity for rights limitations during emergencies. Regulatory “Harmonization”: Article 14 promotes “Regulatory systems strengthening” without safeguards against downward harmonization that could bypass more stringent national safety standards. Emergency Use Authorization Facilitation: Article 14 includes provisions supporting expedited approval pathways for “pandemic-related products” without adequate safety requirements. WHO as Product “Prequalifier”: Article 14 reinforces WHO’s role in product qualification without adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest. Reduced Testing Standards: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring emergency countermeasures meet the same safety standards as products in non-emergency situations. No Explicit Liability Frameworks: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring compensation for injuries resulting from recommended interventions. Natural Immunity Disregarded: [OMISSION] No provisions acknowledging naturally-acquired immunity as an alternative to pharmaceutical interventions. No Protection for Medical Privacy: [OMISSION] No adequate safeguards for personal health data in surveillance systems established under Article 4. Digital Health Certificate Enablement: [OMISSION] No prohibitions against discrimination based on medical status or vaccination status. No Religious/Philosophical Exemption Protection: [OMISSION] No provisions preserving religious or philosophical objections to medical interventions. Children’s Rights Inadequately Protected: [OMISSION] No specific protections against experimental interventions on minors or recognition of parental authority. No Recognition of Medical Autonomy: [OMISSION] No acknowledgment of the right to refuse medical treatment. Pregnant Women Protection Deficient: [OMISSION] No special safeguards for pregnant women regarding experimental interventions. Lack of Informed Consent Requirements: [OMISSION] No explicit provisions ensuring informed consent for emergency countermeasures. No Prior Assembly Approval Requirement: [OMISSION] No requirement for World Health Assembly approval before implementing extraordinary measures. Vulnerable Population Protections Absent: [OMISSION] No specific protections for elderly, immunocompromised, or other high-risk groups regarding experimental interventions. Free Speech Protections Missing: [OMISSION] Article 18 on “Communication and public awareness” lacks safeguards for free speech and open debate about health measures. Medical Coercion Enablement: [OMISSION] No prohibitions against mandates or coercion regarding medical interventions. Lack of Proportionality Requirements: [OMISSION] No explicit requirement that interventions be proportionate to demonstrated risks. Scientific Integrity and Information Control “Misinformation” Control Without Safeguards: Article 18 addresses “Communication and public awareness” without protecting scientific dissent or defining misinformation. Centralized Research Direction: Article 9 establishes mechanisms directing “Research and development” priorities without ensuring scientific independence. Pharmaceutical Solution Bias: Articles 9-14 emphasize pharmaceutical interventions over non-pharmaceutical approaches and traditional medicines. Inadequate Conflict of Interest Protections: [OMISSION] No robust safeguards against industry influence on public health recommendations and research priorities. No Whistleblower Protections: [OMISSION] No provisions protecting scientists who raise concerns about safety or efficacy of recommended interventions. Data Transparency Deficits: [OMISSION] No requirements for full disclosure of clinical trial data for emergency countermeasures. No Independent Verification Requirements: [OMISSION] No provisions requiring independent verification of manufacturer-provided safety and efficacy data. Outcome Measurement Absence: [OMISSION] No objective criteria for evaluating success or failure of directed public health measures. Scientific Methodology Homogenization: [OMISSION] No provisions protecting methodological diversity in research approaches. Traditional Knowledge Marginalization: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring respect for traditional medicine with established safety records. Advisory Mechanism Deficiencies: [OMISSION] No requirements for truly independent scientific advisory mechanisms free from conflicts of interest. Expert Diversity Lacking: [OMISSION] No requirements for including diverse scientific perspectives in advisory bodies. Raw Data Access Limitations: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring independent researchers can access raw clinical trial data. Risk-Benefit Analysis Omissions: [OMISSION] No explicit requirements for transparent risk-benefit analyses before implementing measures. Scientific Debate Suppression Framework: Article 18 on communication lacks protections for scientific debate and dissenting viewpoints. Politicized Science Enablement: [OMISSION] No safeguards separating scientific assessment from political decision-making. Pharmaceutical Publication Bias Unaddressed: [OMISSION] No safeguards against publication bias favoring positive results for pharmaceuticals. Non-Reproducible Research Concerns: [OMISSION] No special provisions ensuring research supporting emergency measures meets reproducibility standards. Precautionary Principle Selectively Applied: [OMISSION] No consistent application of precautionary approaches to both disease risks and intervention risks. Circular Citation Networks Unaddressed: [OMISSION] No safeguards against self-referential citation networks creating pseudo-consensus. Intellectual Property and Resource Control Technology Transfer Mandates: Article 11 requires “Transfer of technology and know-how for the production of pandemic‑related health products” potentially undermining legitimate intellectual property. Compulsory Licensing Ambiguities: [OMISSION] No clear provisions balancing public health needs with intellectual property protections during emergencies. Pathogen Access System: Article 12 establishes a “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” with unclear sovereignty implications. Indigenous Knowledge Appropriation Risks: [OMISSION] Inadequate protections for traditional knowledge and genetic resources in the pathogen sharing system. R&D Disincentives: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring that technology sharing requirements don’t undermine research investment incentives. Digital Infrastructure Mandates: [OMISSION] No provisions addressing the substantial unfunded technology mandates for developing nations. Inequitable Benefit Distribution: Article 12 on “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” lacks concrete implementation mechanisms for equitable benefit distribution. Genetic Data Control: [OMISSION] No explicit consent requirements or usage limitations for genetic information collected through the pathogen sharing system. Supply Chain Nationalization Potential: Article 13 on “Supply chain and logistics” enables extensive government control without clear limitations. Private Sector Commandeering: [OMISSION] No clear compensation frameworks for private sector capacity utilization during emergencies. Unfunded Mandates: [OMISSION] No adequate funding mechanisms for the substantial obligations created by Articles 4-19. Manufacturing Localization Requirements: Article 10 on “Sustainable and geographically diversified local production” imposes potentially unrealistic manufacturing requirements. Resource Allocation Distortions: [OMISSION] No provisions preventing diversion of resources from pressing local health priorities. Patent Pool Coercion: [OMISSION] No safeguards ensuring fair compensation for mandated participation in technology sharing mechanisms. Nagoya Protocol Conflicts: [OMISSION] No provisions addressing potential conflicts between Article 12’s pathogen sharing system and the Nagoya Protocol. Bilateral Agreement Disruption: [OMISSION] No provisions preserving existing bilateral agreements on technology transfer and intellectual property. Strategic Resource Designation: [OMISSION] No limitations on designation of health technologies as strategic resources subject to special controls. Compulsory Knowledge Transfer: Article 11 requires transfer of “know-how” which goes beyond traditional IP sharing to include trade secrets. Indigenous Rights Undermined: [OMISSION] No specific protections for indigenous peoples’ rights over traditional knowledge and genetic resources. TRIPS Agreement Conflicts: [OMISSION] No provisions addressing potential conflicts with WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Implementation and Structural Concerns Inadequate Biosafety Protocols: [OMISSION] Article 12’s pathogen sharing system lacks sufficient safety requirements for collection, storage, and research of dangerous pathogens. Gain-of-Function Research Oversight Deficit: [OMISSION] No provisions limiting potentially dangerous pathogen manipulation research. Laboratory Leak Prevention Inadequacies: [OMISSION] No provisions strengthening laboratory containment standards despite recognized pandemic risks. Financial Burden Inequities: [OMISSION] No mechanisms ensuring equitable distribution of compliance costs, particularly for developing nations. One-Size-Fits-All Approach: [OMISSION] No provisions allowing adaptation to different health systems, resources, and contexts. Surveillance Without Privacy Protections: Article 4 promotes expanded health surveillance without proportionate data protection safeguards. International Humanitarian Law Reference: Article 3 inappropriately references “international humanitarian law” (normally applicable to armed conflicts) for public health measures. Technical Assistance Insufficiency: [OMISSION] Inadequate capacity-building provisions for resource-limited countries to implement complex requirements. Strategic Ambiguity in Critical Provisions: Multiple articles contain bracketed text and highlighting indicating “areas still to be resolved,” creating strategic ambiguity. Reliance on WHO Assessment: [OMISSION] No independent verification mechanisms for WHO’s pandemic risk assessments despite documented failures in previous emergencies. Health System Capacity Disparities Unaddressed: [OMISSION] No adequate provisions accounting for vast differences in health system capacity between nations. Public-Private Partnership Risks: [OMISSION] No safeguards against problematic entanglements between public authorities and commercial interests. Resource Competition Creation: [OMISSION] No mechanisms preventing exacerbated competition for scarce medical resources during emergencies. Colonial Power Dynamics: [OMISSION] No safeguards against reproducing colonial dynamics in global health governance with decision-making centered in wealthy nations. Conflation of Communication with Compliance: Article 18 approaches communication primarily as ensuring compliance rather than authentic dialogue. Insufficient Recognition of Regional Differences: [OMISSION] No provisions accounting for regional epidemiological and cultural differences in pandemic response. Undefined “Equitable Access”: [OMISSION] Uses term “equitable access” throughout without clear definition or implementation criteria. Lack of Cultural Sensitivity Requirements: [OMISSION] No provisions ensuring interventions respect diverse cultural contexts and beliefs. International Organizations Supremacy: Article 3 establishes WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority” without adequate checks and balances. Historical Amnesia: [OMISSION] No acknowledgment of lessons from historical abuses of emergency powers or failures in previous health emergencies. Evolution of the WHO Pandemic Treaty: Key Changes and Persistent Threats As the WHO Pandemic Treaty has evolved through multiple drafts, negotiators have made strategic adjustments to facilitate its adoption while preserving the core architecture of centralized control. These changes represent tactical concessions rather than substantive improvements to address fundamental concerns. Notable Changes in the April 12, 2025 Draft Withdrawal Period Reduction: Early Drafts: Required a three-year waiting period before nations could exit the treaty April 12 Draft: Reduced to a one-year waiting period (Article 32) Analysis: While improved, this still creates a substantial lock-in period during which nations cannot rapidly respond to harmful consequences Ratification Threshold Increase: Early Drafts: Required 30-40 nations to ratify before entry into force April 12 Draft: Increased to 60 nations (Article 35) Analysis: Though numerically higher, this threshold remains insufficient given the treaty’s extraordinary scope and implications Strategic Ambiguity in Key Provisions: Early Drafts: More explicit language in controversial areas April 12 Draft: Uses yellow highlighting for “areas still to be resolved” and employs deliberately vague terminology Analysis: Creates illusion of ongoing negotiation while preserving dangerous provisions through strategic indeterminacy Rhetorical Inclusion of Human Rights: Early Drafts: Initially removed references to “dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons” April 12 Draft: Reintroduced references to human rights but includes confusing references to “international humanitarian law” (Article 3) Analysis: Superficial inclusion of rights language without substantive protections or enforcement mechanisms Benefit-Sharing Ambiguities: Early Drafts: More specific commitments to supporting developing nations April 12 Draft: Article 12 on Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System contains numerous bracketed sections indicating unresolved issues Analysis: Creates impression of equity while deferring concrete commitments Conclusion The April 12, 2025 draft maintains all the critical flaws of previous versions despite cosmetic changes.

Pandemic is redefined by WHO to include whatever WHO decides is a contagious illness, even when the immune system in most cases can handle this. Each nation to decide how to handle health issues within their own contry. Each individual to decide what to accept into their body, WHO can issue fact based reports for information , not give advice and never instruct anything.

United States

I am signing because of Criminal behavior and the implementation of the involuntary COVID-19 vaccination, as is said today after the abolition of compulsory vaccination! According to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, based in Geneva, the compulsory vaccination was also carried out with a global quarantine. In his homeland of Eritrea, he was a terrorist and thus brought his talent to the WHO! Responsible for global genocide!

I want my God given rights to live my life without fear and harm and i terference from mafia.

This overreach with no exceptions

As I read it, this treaty violates many of the basic principle which legal United States government is only convened to protect. This treaty constitutes treason against the USA.

I have no faith in theWHO!!!!! No one owns my body but me and only I say what goes into it and what I feel is best for me!!!!!

I totally agree that the WHO is malevolent organisaton.

The WHO is a criminal organization run by uncredentialed psychopaths who must be stopped and arrested!

I care

I only want people elected to represent us to be making decisions as they need to be made not as a group think International who knows how corrupt body making our decisions for us. And that doesn’t mean those that decide to accept this treaty because our elected officials change from time to time still thought processes will change along with it

I am signing because of the greatest crime and genocide in the human history that were happened during the last five years.I am signing in the name of all the dead People that could not sign this petition thanks to the above mentioned- genocide.I m signing as a man , the member of the Society of One heaven ,and I hope that this evil work will never happen again. Amen

I do not want the WHO to take control of my health or decisions about our country’s freedom.

I care about our future.

The WHO organization should not have any jurisdiction over a “pandemic” and charge of health rules to control nations.

I am against the threat of loss of freedoms due to the world health organization.

Keep the US sovereign!

I am signing petition because I oppose this pandemic treaty

This “agreement” overrides all individual’s rights to bodily autonomy. It is a power grab by the WHO.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty is a dangerous document to freedom and sovereignty.

I oppose the W.H.O. Pandemic Treaty. It is only a front to profit from mandating vaccines for false pandemics.

the who must be stopped

We need toEXIT THE WHO [.]

Why don’t we just dip their balls in honey and chain them to an anthill?

The unelected, unaccountable body of the WHO must be stopped from forcing the Pandemic Treaty on member nations.

The global greed must stop and all guilty ones must go into prison for all time!

Era evidente que Tedros nos tenía algo preparado de última hora, y eso fue que, al salir EEUU, entra Bill Gates a controlar vacunas, información sanitaria y preparación de pandemias y sin siquiera pedir aprobación los estados miembros! Una puta locura!

Oposición a dictadura de salud

We need get control of our country the way a real country should be run. And our sovereignty won’t exist anymore if the WHO gets that Pandemic Treaty in place.

ThisagreementthreatensthesovereIgntyofProvinceswithinourcountryandindividualautonomyplusdefiesthetruth.

No a la OMS. En la tesitura actual hace más mal que bien. O vuelve a sus orígenes, o que desaparezca.

The owner of that WHO scam: Billy “the syringe” says we are too many people in the world. He can practice what he preaches and the all the shots 💉💉💉, obviously he won’t, we know who he is and how sad and little man he is, the only thing this nerd have is money and despite bribing all the institutions and sell out media no one believes him, yeah it sucks, doesn’t it Billy?

I am signing because the WHO puts all humans at risk

I AM OPPOSED TO THE WHO TREATY AND ALL OF THEIR MASS VACCINATION PLANS.

Because the WHO are killers

I don’t agree

I want to choose my health

I dont want them to decide about our lives.

I, Kerryn L Bennett do NOT consent to public health being outsourced to globalists that have zero consideration for respecting healthcare policy & processes within sovereign nation states.

WHO is unelected and unaccountable. It must butt out of National countries Health policies.

DSÖ Pandemi Anlaşması’nın ulusal egemenliğimize ve bedensel özerkliğimize tehdit içerdiğini görmekteyim ve Türkiye’nin bu anlaşmayı imzalamamasını talep etmekteyim.

The world must not allow these evil globalist’s to have ANY say in ANYTHING!

The Pandemic Treaty is harmful and dangerous to the genuine health and well-being of the peoples of the world, from multiple angles, not least it’s failure to guarantee personal health sovereignty, with fully-informed consent, to every person in the world.

Nobody from any Organization should tell any country how to treat a illness or virus with absolute authority.

The Pandemic Agreement amounts to nothing more than population control by unelected elites who care little about health & a lot about money.

We don’t need them. We want an independent organisation. We don’t need private companies.

Because the WHO is a non voted corrupt entity seeking to control the World