ADVERTISEMENT

'America Last' health treaty

Hawk_82

HR Heisman
Sep 17, 2006
5,438
5,319
113
President Joe Biden’s diplomats are negotiating a treaty with the World Health Organization to promote so-called global health equity. The premise is that in a pandemic or other worldwide disease emergency, Americans should not get better or faster health care than inhabitants of third-world countries. If Biden rams this through, Americans will suffer and die needlessly.

Under the draft treaty, presented in Geneva on Feb. 1, the U.S. will be obligated to hand over a whopping 20% of its medical supplies, including diagnostic tests, antiviral medications and vaccines, to WHO for global distribution. Article 10 of the treaty specifies this will be done in “real-time,” not after American needs are met. The U.S. will no longer be able to rush treatments and vaccines to its own citizens, prioritizing them before sending aid to other countries.

Grandma will have to wait longer for her Paxlovid or other treatments because those items, now being stockpiled and paid for by American taxpayers, will be shipped to Nigeria, Uruguay, Afghanistan and other underdeveloped nations. The WHO will call the shots on which countries get what supplies.

Treaty supporters skewer the U.S. for using up most of the Paxlovid on Americans during the recent pandemic and monopolizing early access to vaccines. They think Americans should make their own family’s health secondary to achieving global equity. Harvard University health expert Jesse Bump says the treaty is designed to correct “the shameful and selfish actions of rich countries in the COVID pandemic.”

Worse, the treaty suspends patent protection for new vaccines and treatments whenever the WHO declares a pandemic. Drug companies will put the brakes on investing billions developing future antivirals and vaccines under such a threat.

The treaty deplores “intellectual property” as a barrier to “scientific progress for all.” Just the opposite is true. Where would the world have been in 2021 if Moderna and Pfizer hadn’t rushed to develop vaccines in order to reap profits?

Article 19 would require the U.S. and other wealthy countries to pay a fixed percentage of GDP yearly into a WHO pandemic preparedness fund. WHO already collects sizable sums of money from the U.S. but unfortunately takes its orders from China. WHO’s subservience to China makes the treaty especially perilous. Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus kowtowed to China in January 2020 to cover up the initial coronavirus outbreak. Then, Ghebreyesus bowed to China’s refusal to cooperate investigations of the pandemic’s source. He also barred Taiwan from observing COVID meetings on China’s orders. Despite this, Anthony Fauci calls the pro-China Ghebreyesus his friend. Fauci’s fingerprints are all over this treaty.

More worrisome is Biden’s acquiescence. When Ghebreyesus’ term as director general expired, Biden supported his reelection instead of proposing a candidate who isn’t in China’s pocket. To hell with American interests. Now, the proposed WHO treaty poses a new danger. It is a toxic brew of confiscatory demands for global health equity combined with behind-the-scenes dictates from China.

The treaty’s defenders claim that nothing would allow WHO to meddle in how the U.S. responds domestically to a pandemic. But the actual wording of Article 4 proves otherwise. It states that each country will manage its own domestic health policies provided these policies “do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.” You can drive a truck through that exception.

The draft treaty says it will go into effect “provisionally” before each country’s legislature considers it. To block that end-run around the Constitution, 19 Republican U.S. senators introduced a bill Feb. 15 stating the treaty is not binding unless the Senate ratifies it. Biden, Fauci and other government big shots pushing this treaty don’t have to worry that their family members will be denied ventilators and medications when a pandemic strikes. They always go to the front of the line. But ordinary Americans need to speak up forcefully and reject the notion that they should settle for a lower standard of care to promote global health equity. America is a generous nation, but American resources need to be reserved to meet America’s needs first, Biden’s “America Last” policies be damned.

 
Under the draft treaty, presented in Geneva on Feb. 1, the U.S. will be obligated to hand over a whopping 20% of its medical supplies, including diagnostic tests, antiviral medications and vaccines, to WHO for global distribution. Article 10 of the treaty specifies this will be done in “real-time,” not after American needs are met. The U.S. will no longer be able to rush treatments and vaccines to its own citizens, prioritizing them before sending aid to other countries.



If true...that's F'd up.
 
If true...that's F'd up.
What's F'd up is our healthcare racket where we pay more when we get sick for treatment and prescription drugs than anywhere else in the civilized world. Nobody would trade with us. Drug companies screw us. Hospitals screw insurance companies and the insurance companies pass that screwing on to us.

Just one more thing Republicans say we can't do in this country...because their donors don't want to.
 
This is not about the source. I linked the proposed treaty above.
This source just happened to write a fairly concise summary of what this treaty could do
It's about people ignoring your other conservative think tank opinion you shared about this yesterday.

 
Uh...this is how you get out in front of global pandemics, spud.
I was not aware that diversity, equity and inclusion was how you get in front of a pandemic. Because this is one of the main goals of this treaty.

One of the scary parts is where it is specifically stated that the who has the authority to declare a pandemic/ public health emergency.

Along with fighting climate change, gender inequality, the 2030 objective for sustainable development, whole of government approach, whole of society approach.

These were all things that are pushed in a pandemic treaty. It's almost like there is more at play than just preventing a pandemic.
 
I was not aware that diversity, equity and inclusion was how you get in front of a pandemic. Because this is one of the main goals of this treaty.

One of the scary parts is where it is specifically stated that the who has the authority to declare a pandemic/ public health emergency.

Along with fighting climate change, gender inequality, the 2030 objective for sustainable development, whole of government approach, whole of society approach.

These were all things that are pushed in a pandemic treaty. It's almost like there is more at play than just preventing a pandemic.
Just say the Jews
 
What's F'd up is our healthcare racket where we pay more when we get sick for treatment and prescription drugs than anywhere else in the civilized world. Nobody would trade with us. Drug companies screw us. Hospitals screw insurance companies and the insurance companies pass that screwing on to us.

Just one more thing Republicans say we can't do in this country...because their donors don't want to.
What does that have to do with this treaty and the provision I highlighted?
 
It's about people ignoring your other conservative think tank opinion you shared about this yesterday.

I actually read the treaty and posted some of the findings, but people don't want to take the time to actually read the 40+ page document.

I reposted an article I found that highlights some of the main concerns I have about it.

The first line of the treaty reaffirms sovereignty for individual nations, and that is followed up with a bunch of stuff promoting Universal Healthcare, and forfeiting patent royalties for pandemic related products, having 20% of all pandemic related goods to be at the ready for the who to distribute.

I hope you can see the inconsistencies in what they are saying.
 
What's F'd up is our healthcare racket where we pay more when we get sick for treatment and prescription drugs than anywhere else in the civilized world. Nobody would trade with us. Drug companies screw us. Hospitals screw insurance companies and the insurance companies pass that screwing on to us.

Just one more thing Republicans say we can't do in this country...because their donors don't want to.
This treaty is the equivalent of no child left behind.

It will give a lot to the under developed nations and take a lot from the developed nations. And will remove much of the control from the individual nations.
 
This treaty is the equivalent of no child left behind.

It will give a lot to the under developed nations and take a lot from the developed nations. And will remove much of the control from the individual nations.
This seems like it isn't exactly true.
 
What does that have to do with this treaty and the provision I highlighted?
giphy.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
I actually read the treaty and posted some of the findings, but people don't want to take the time to actually read the 40+ page document.

I reposted an article I found that highlights some of the main concerns I have about it.

The first line of the treaty reaffirms sovereignty for individual nations, and that is followed up with a bunch of stuff promoting Universal Healthcare, and forfeiting patent royalties for pandemic related products, having 20% of all pandemic related goods to be at the ready for the who to distribute.

I hope you can see the inconsistencies in what they are saying.
It sounds like the UN controlling our military via resolution is what it sounds like.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Joes Place
This is not about the source. I linked the proposed treaty above.
This source just happened to write a fairly concise summary of what this treaty could do

And what did the past 3 years "teach" you here?

Pandemics will NOT stay in any "country of origin" if they are not provided resources to address the outbreak, quickly. THAT is what this treaty is intending to address.

Yet, here you are with your "America First" bullshit, ignoring the root of the problem.
 
I actually read the treaty and posted some of the findings, but people don't want to take the time to actually read the 40+ page document.

I reposted an article I found that highlights some of the main concerns I have about it.
But you didn't read it, either.

You just posted concerns from someone's slanted summary of it.
 
So you don't think they will sign it? That is possible.

But the usa is the #1 donor to the who and and Bill Gates foundation is #2. It seems like the US aligns closely with the who.
No, I'm saying your perspective and that of the opinion piece you linked is fundamentally flawed. The structure of our government does not allow for any branch to "sign over US sovereignty".

We will never understand each other because you are debating from erroneous ground.
 
You read an "Epoch-Times" level review.

CP posted a summary from FactCheck that is FAR more accurate. Take a bit of your time to actually read that.
I read and posted the actual draft of the treaty from the WHO and you are referring me to go a different source to get the "accurate" details?

I can understand what I read in the treaty, I don't need a 3rd party to interpret it for me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
What's F'd up is our healthcare racket where we pay more when we get sick for treatment and prescription drugs than anywhere else in the civilized world. Nobody would trade with us. Drug companies screw us. Hospitals screw insurance companies and the insurance companies pass that screwing on to us.

Just one more thing Republicans say we can't do in this country...because their donors don't want to.
This is a whataboutism
 
No, I'm saying your perspective and that of the opinion piece you linked is fundamentally flawed. The structure of our government does not allow for any branch to "sign over US sovereignty".

We will never understand each other because you are debating from erroneous ground.
I don't have any ties or love for the article I posted. I posted this so we could discuss some of the points in the actual treaty. Seems like this would be very expensive for the USA and would drastically hurt innovation and revenue.

Ill start with this:
"4. In the event of a pandemic, the Parties: (a) will take appropriate measures to support time-bound waivers of intellectual property rights that can accelerate or scale up manufacturing of pandemic-related products during a pandemic, to the extent necessary to increase the availability and adequacy of affordable pandemic-related products"

"(c) shall encourage all holders of patents related to the production of pandemic-related products to waive, or manage as appropriate, payment of royalties by developing country manufacturers on the use, during the pandemic, of their technology for production of pandemicrelated products, and shall require, as appropriate, those that have received public financing for the development of pandemic-related products to do so;"

“pandemic-related products” means products that may be needed for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and/or recovery, and which may include, without limitation, diagnostics, therapeutics, medicines, vaccines, personal protective equipment, syringes and oxygen;"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
If the treaty restricts the United States and a pandemic happens, that treaty will be ignored in 10 minutes by the United States or people will be getting their guns out.

That’s a lot of “ If’ing “ but I am not worried about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIXERS24
Rather debatable.

I don't think you can read past a headline.
All you have done is disagree with everything I say. My 5 year old nephew disagrees with everything as well. Im glad you are on the same level as a 5 year old.

Try adding a different perspective instead of just disagreeing. That is how a discussion works.
 
I don't have any ties or love for the article I posted. I posted this so we could discuss some of the points in the actual treaty. Seems like this would be very expensive for the USA and would drastically hurt innovation and revenue.

How, specifically, does this hurt "innovation" and "revenue"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT