For a few days now, I have been reading more and more about the WHO pandemic treaty and that the WHO is planning to put a vaccination certificate network into operation. What is probably of little interest to the majority of people and you think little about it, because it does not affect your own person, provides me for ringing alarm bells. In this article you will learn why I am watching this development with concern.
SARS, H1N1, H5N1, Covid - why now?
In the last 25 years there have been, at least for me consciously perceived, 4 major epidemics or pandemics. SARS (SARS-Cov-1, 774 deaths) 2002-2004, H1N1 2009-2010 ( 151.700 - 575.400 deaths), H5N1 appearing again and again worldwide (Pandemic but "guaranteed), Covid 2021-2023.
In retrospect, we didn't start wearing respirators in Europe, especially Germany, until the Covid pandemic in 2021. Which makes me wonder why respirators were not used in the years before? SARS also came from China/Hong Kong in 1999, in Asia the wearing of respirators was also more culturally accepted than in the Western world, if you look at it from the point of view of that time. Couldn't we have or should we have worn respirators then? There was also a vaccine for H1N1, and it also had major side effects (More than 5000 reported side effects ignored, 17-fold increase in narcolepsy diseases among adolescents in Finland), but was never given major media coverage, as was the case with Covid today. One thing that has not been possible in recent years due to a lack of technical development is the establishment of a global network for vaccination certificates.
The obvious idea
In principle, the idea of being able to keep vaccination certificates digitally is not a bad one, because whenever I go on a trip, I have to see if I can find my vaccination certificate from good old paper. Once I lost it and vaccinations that I got in the Czech Republic at that time, my immune system knows, but is no longer available in writing. Annoying. A bad copy helps at least something temporally to be able to classify the vaccinations from earlier.
So the idea itself is good, you can carry your vaccination certificate digitally in your smartphone at all times, so to speak, and all over the world doctors can track your vaccination status because the vaccination certificate is tied to a user.
What could possibly go wrong?
The hidden idea
And there's a lot that can go wrong! Because during the Covid pandemic, we saw life being cut back all over the world, companies stopping production, and quarantines being imposed when someone's app sounded the alarm. Companies had to shut down when there was a case of infection in the workforce and employees critical to the business had to be quarantined.
In China, such a rigorous system was implemented to attempt containment that required all citizens to have a Covid app, with district-wide checkpoints, you were only allowed to continue if the Covid app was green. Unfortunately, the lesson reads that the measures and the high population density in cities, made it impossible to eradicate a virus in a city. In the end was soaked with the hope that there would be as few deaths as possible. The plan had not worked and there were 60,000 deaths since the relaxations. The main reason for this was the suddenly overburdened health care system, which could not care for all the people at the same time.
Taiwan could unlike China's mainland, Getting the pandemic under control without a tracking app, so only the smartphone and the phone number were tracked via the radio cell interrogation. But also other countries have on tracking apps set. Some of these used centralized and decentralized protocols.
Now the WHO wants to build a digital certificate network, which, centrally managed by the WHO, would contain information about the vaccination status of every citizen. I have already mentioned the obvious idea, but now let's look at what will be feasible in a hidden way.
With the Pandemic Treaty, the WHO can declare a pandemic and restrict fundamental rights and rights in the public sphere at any time when there is a WHO-defined "pandemic" situation that threatens the safety and health of people. The problem is, who at WHO then defines this situation? And who determines the measures?
I don't know that, but what I do know is that without Covid vaccination you were not allowed to fly in the pandemic. Consequently, we can say that the following is feasible within the realistic and technical possibilities:
- The WHO can build vaccination certificate network worldwide
- States that have signed the WHO pandemic treaty voluntarily hand over the rule of law to a non-democratically legitimized organization
- WHO can declare a pandemic at any time without accountability
- The digital vaccination certificates restrict the possibility of leaving the country by certificate. If vaccination certificates are missing, the exit by plane can be refused for technical and legal reasons. In the Schengen area, where there are no border fences in the EU, travel within Europe should continue to be possible, provided you are not checked.
- When the pandemic case is declared, people will need the vaccination certificate/tracking app to be allowed to move in public spaces, so the WHO can decide at any time which people can move and who cannot, or which people can be restricted from public life. When there was a bank run in China in 2022 and then protests, the Covid app of the affected switched to red. So it is feasible even without personal data, tracking app users by computer and radius setting, people to switch to red and thus to enforce a quarantine.
One consequence of this development would be that democratically legitimized institutions would be disempowered, and thus basic rights would also be endangered. The WHO is not only financed by the community of states, but also receives a not insignificant part from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Interesting side note, the GAVI vaccination alliance, is also financed by Bill Gates, and comes with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on almost the same amount of money paid by the United States of America. Quite alarming, even if they are 2 completely separate institutions, this fact should be known.
The German Bundestag voted on a reform in May 2023, which only vaguely says what the reform will look like. Depending on how you interpret these formulations. By a majority, 497 votes, the motion was passed and must be implemented by the federal government. Here you can find the Motion 20/6712 and the naming of the voting participants on abgeordnetenwatch.de (Strengthening and reform of the World Health Organization). More than 500,000 people have registered in a petition on the citizengo.org platform against the pandemic treaty.
Here are the Changes in the pandemic contract viewable.
Some excerpts I researched and was able to find in the contract:
Thus, WHO is to be given a central role in coordination (WHO's central role as the directing and coordinating authority, Page 22, Article 13, 2.e), and be allowed to send teams to outbreak regions more quickly (WHO rapid access to outbreak areas, Page 22, Article 13, 2.i). Furthermore, governments are obliged to prevent infodemias, i.e. the dissemination of false information, as defined by the WHO (tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, Page 24, Article 16, 1/2.a, 2.b). Thus, active censorship can occur when information is disseminated that does not correspond to the truth of the WHO. Many have also perceived something similar with the COVID pandemic. Mark Zuckerberg himself confirmed censorship measures and Elon Musk was able to show with the Twitter Files that the USA also operated censorship on Twitter.
In addition to other points, the majority will not read through more than 190 pages, which are partly written in lawyer English, I see the issue of disinformation, already today one can retrospectively consider that there were many false statements about the safety of vaccinations. From no side effects was in the policy the speech, or that only a vaccination help, although this could not perform any herd immunity, but also that women could be impaired in their reproduction, this has already been scientifically confirmed and is not only "subjective" (Determining the Effect of COVID-19 on the Menstrual Cycle Among Women of Reproductive Age Group in the Jazan Region: A Cross-Sectional Study.), DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32431
Such and similar studies were dismissed as fake news during the pandemic and labeled as not serious. When a non-democratically determined institution decides what information is wrong and what is right, this can compromise independent science. Furthermore, this influence can also lead to further censorship.
The opinion resulting from my technical point of view is that a system such as the digital certificate network, in combination with the readily given permissions to the WHO, can then restrict them the freedom of travel and therefore become dangerous.
The criteria by which the World Health Organization (WHO) may declare a pandemic are as follows:
- New disease: The disease is new or has spread in a form not seen before. The disease must be
- This disease must People concern.
- Global distribution: The disease has occurred simultaneously in several countries or continents.
- No fixed number of countries or continents: There is no specific number of countries or continents that must be affected for a pandemic to be declared. The decision is based more on the spread and potential of the disease to spread globally.
Another potential danger, hacker attacks on the WHO's central vaccination certificate office, could forge it or even have people quarantined. Depending on the architecture, this is more or less actually possible. With the Covid app in Germany, this was not possible, because it would not have been technically capable of doing this, at least that is my latest technical status.
The WHO is important as an institution, and has done a lot in the last 75 years to improve the health situation in different countries, mainly third world countries. And I do not criticize that, but I advise to think that too much power is not a good combination when a non-democratic institution has influence on people.
Nevertheless, vaccinations are important in themselves. I would like to make this clear, but they should be tested for years.