🧵THREAD: The WHO Pandemic Agreement has now passed.
There was no parliamentary vote, no public debate, and no referendum.
This thread explains what was agreed, how it happened, and why concerns about sovereignty, accountability, and global governance are growing.
[1/15]
There was no parliamentary vote, no public debate, and no referendum.
This thread explains what was agreed, how it happened, and why concerns about sovereignty, accountability, and global governance are growing.
[1/15]
On 20th May 2025, WHO member states adopted the organisation’s first international Pandemic Agreement at the 78th World Health Assembly in Geneva.
The treaty was adopted by consensus, not a formal vote, which means that governments, including the UK, signalled approval without domestic scrutiny.
[2/15]
The treaty was adopted by consensus, not a formal vote, which means that governments, including the UK, signalled approval without domestic scrutiny.
[2/15]
The treaty is designed to address failings exposed by how countries "handled COVID-19."
It outlines legal commitments to:
– Share pathogen samples & genetic data
– Distribute vaccines & therapeutics “equitably”
– Strengthen international surveillance
– Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations
– Develop global digital health certification systems
[3/15]
It outlines legal commitments to:
– Share pathogen samples & genetic data
– Distribute vaccines & therapeutics “equitably”
– Strengthen international surveillance
– Comply with WHO-led emergency declarations
– Develop global digital health certification systems
[3/15]
This agreement is not limited to pandemic response.
It's based on the WHO’s “One Health” framework, which views human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected.
Critics (rightly) argue this broadens the WHO’s scope, allowing it to influence food systems, climate policy, agriculture, and land use under the guise of “pandemic prevention.”
[4/15]
It's based on the WHO’s “One Health” framework, which views human, animal, and environmental health as interconnected.
Critics (rightly) argue this broadens the WHO’s scope, allowing it to influence food systems, climate policy, agriculture, and land use under the guise of “pandemic prevention.”
[4/15]
While the WHO cannot override national law, the treaty creates binding international obligations.
Governments may use it to justify emergency laws or sweeping public health powers — while shielding decisions behind the language of “international compliance” or “global coordination.”
[5/15]
Governments may use it to justify emergency laws or sweeping public health powers — while shielding decisions behind the language of “international compliance” or “global coordination.”
[5/15]
The WHO is not a democratic institution. Its Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, is not elected by citizens, but appointed via a process dominated by diplomatic negotiations between member states.
His past controversies, including handling of the early COVID outbreak and ties to China, have fuelled concerns about impartiality.
[6/15]
His past controversies, including handling of the early COVID outbreak and ties to China, have fuelled concerns about impartiality.
[6/15]
The WHO’s top funders are not primarily governments. As of 2023, its largest contributors included:
– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
– GAVI Alliance
– UNICEF
– The European Commission
– Germany and the US
Private foundations now shape global public health priorities — without any electoral mandate.
[7/15]
– Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
– GAVI Alliance
– UNICEF
– The European Commission
– Germany and the US
Private foundations now shape global public health priorities — without any electoral mandate.
[7/15]
Among the more contentious provisions of the treaty are proposals to implement a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system.
This would allow WHO to access pathogen samples from any country and redistribute pharmaceutical products under “equitable” frameworks — potentially overriding domestic vaccine supply chains.
[8/15]
This would allow WHO to access pathogen samples from any country and redistribute pharmaceutical products under “equitable” frameworks — potentially overriding domestic vaccine supply chains.
[8/15]
The treaty also encourages states to adopt digital health documentation systems, which could evolve into permanent digital IDs tied to vaccination or health status.
While presented as public health tools, such systems have been heavily criticised by civil liberties groups as intrusive, coercive, and open to mission creep.
[9/15]
While presented as public health tools, such systems have been heavily criticised by civil liberties groups as intrusive, coercive, and open to mission creep.
[9/15]
Several countries abstained or objected during the drafting phase. These include:
– Poland 🇵🇱
– Russia 🇷🇺
– Italy 🇮🇹
– Iran 🇮🇷
– Slovakia 🇸🇰
Their stated concerns include loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity, and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.
[10/15]
– Poland 🇵🇱
– Russia 🇷🇺
– Italy 🇮🇹
– Iran 🇮🇷
– Slovakia 🇸🇰
Their stated concerns include loss of national sovereignty, lack of legal clarity, and the risk of unelected institutions imposing policy.
[10/15]
In the UK, there has been virtually no parliamentary debate over the treaty. No formal statement has been made by the Prime Minister or Health Secretary.
Despite the agreement’s long-term implications, the UK has participated in negotiations quietly —bypassing public scrutiny.
[11/15]
Despite the agreement’s long-term implications, the UK has participated in negotiations quietly —bypassing public scrutiny.
[11/15]
The adoption of this treaty reflects a broader trend:
The shift from nation-state governance to transnational managerialism.
Under this model, decisions affecting millions are increasingly shaped by technocrats, NGOs, foundations, and UN agencies — none of whom are directly accountable to voters.
James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" explains this.
[12/15]
The shift from nation-state governance to transnational managerialism.
Under this model, decisions affecting millions are increasingly shaped by technocrats, NGOs, foundations, and UN agencies — none of whom are directly accountable to voters.
James Burnham's "The Managerial Revolution" explains this.
[12/15]
This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a structural change in how global policy is made — particularly in moments of crisis.
What COVID began, the WHO treaty formalises:
Emergency governance, centralised authority, and the use of global health as a gateway to broader control.
[13/15]
What COVID began, the WHO treaty formalises:
Emergency governance, centralised authority, and the use of global health as a gateway to broader control.
[13/15]
If democratic governments can enter binding international agreements on pandemic policy without consulting their citizens, then who governs in a crisis?
The answer, increasingly, is:
Those you cannot remove from office.
[14/15]
The answer, increasingly, is:
Those you cannot remove from office.
[14/15]
The WHO Pandemic Agreement is a landmark. Not just in public health, but in global governance.
It centralises authority, weakens national sovereignty, and embeds unelected influence at the heart of crisis response.
The public was never asked.
[15/15]
It centralises authority, weakens national sovereignty, and embeds unelected influence at the heart of crisis response.
The public was never asked.
[15/15]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
