WHO Pandemic Treaty: is PABS a win-win for Big Pharma?

The session which opened on Monday in Geneva is being described as decisive^[1]. Its aim? To finalise the ‘PABS’ annex (see below), without which the treaty cannot be signed by states^[2]. At the opening of the proceedings, the Director-General of the WHO asked the delegations to accept a system without delay, on the understanding that it would be ‘improved’ later, rather than seeking ‘a perfect system^[3]’. Sign first, rewrite the text later: this approach is cause for concern when it comes to a text that will be legally binding on the states that ratify it.

Back in April 2022, we at BAM! were already reporting that a treaty granting the WHO supranational powers to manage pandemics was in the pipeline^[4]. This information had been fact-checked and declared false (!) at the time by AFP^[5]. Two months later, Katiouchka, from BAM!, warned that if the measures didn’t come in through the front door, they would come in through the window^[6]. The front door was the treaty. The window was the International Health Regulations (IHR), which the WHO was drawing up in parallel, much more discreetly. Where do we stand today?

A treaty adopted but not signed – why?

The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted on 20 May 2025 by the World Health Assembly, with 124 votes in favour, none against and six abstentions: Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Russia, Israel and Iran^[7][8]. It remained for the prospective signatories to agree on the so-called ‘PABS’ annex, which appears to be causing them headaches. The negotiations were due to be concluded in May 2026, but as no agreement was reached, they have been extended^[9]. The final text is now expected at the World Health Assembly in May 2027, or earlier at a special session^[10]. Once the annex has been adopted, the treaty is expected to be signed and then ratified, and it will enter into force thirty days after the sixtieth ratification^[11].

What does the text say? Article 22 specifies that nothing in the agreement allows the WHO to impose vaccination mandates, lockdowns or travel restrictions on states^[12]. The WHO repeats this to anyone who will listen^[13]. Should we believe it? One is entitled to be sceptical, as most of what we have been denouncing since 2022 did not wait for the treaty to be implemented.

If not through the front door, then through the back

On 1 June 2024, the World Health Assembly adopted a series of amendments to the International Health Regulations^[20]. They came into force on 19 September 2025 in all countries that had not rejected them^[21]. The consolidated text is available on the WHO website^[22]. What does it contain?

Firstly, a ‘pandemic emergency’, a new alert level ranking above a public health emergency of international concern (Articles 1 and 12)^[23][24]. Who declares it? The Director-General of the WHO, on the advice of a ‘committee of experts ^[25]’. He may then issue ‘temporary recommendations’ to Member States^[26]. This is precisely what we described in 2022: threats that the WHO alone would be empowered to declare^[27]. In 2023, KAro also pointed out in the pages of BAM! that the WHO had already broadened its own definitions to declare the global H1N1 influenza emergency in 2009^[28].

Next, health certificates, including digital ones (Article 35 and Annex 6)^[29]. According to this annex, a vaccination certificate is only valid if the vaccine used has been approved by the WHO^[30]. As early as 5 June 2023, the European Commission had submitted its digital Covid certificate system to the WHO, which became the first building block of the^[31] organisation’s ‘global digital health certification network’. What KAro and Isabelle Duchateau had been warning about as far back as 2023^[32][33] has therefore become a reality. And the network is expanding: the International Organisation for Migration joined it in March 2026^[34], and in the same week the WHO launched a ‘digital health wallet’ programme in South-East Asia^[35].

‘Disinformation’: out of the treaty, into the regulation

In 2022, the draft texts of the treaty provided for a ‘global fight against disinformation’ — that is to say, the fight against the right to access information outside official narratives. In the final text, this fight has disappeared from the articles of the agreement. Article 16 now refers only to ‘risk communication’ and ‘science-based’ information; so-called ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ — terms known to be used to justify the censorship of any dissenting opinion — remain only in the preamble.

Has the ‘fight against disinformation’ disappeared? Not at all! Annex 1 of the amended International Health Regulations now requires states to develop capacities for ‘risk communication, including to combat misinformation and disinformation^[36][37]’. What went out the back door of the treaty has therefore come in through the back window of the regulations, exactly as Katiouchka predicted^[38]. Who will decide what constitutes ‘disinformation’ during the next crisis? The very same fact-checkers who labelled the accurate 2022 warning about this treaty^[39] as ‘false’?

Eleven countries have said no: why not Belgium?

Each state had until 19 July 2025 to reject the amendments^[40][41]. Eleven did so: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, the Philippines and the United States^[42]. Italy, for example, invoked the primacy of its national sovereignty^[43]. Slovakia and New Zealand followed suit in March 2026^[44]. In Germany, Canada and Brazil, the rejection is provisional, pending parliamentary approval^[45]. In Berlin, Parliament finally approved the amendments: the law passed by the Bundestag on 6 November 2025 has been in force since 28 January 2026^[46]. Among our neighbours, therefore, there is a public debate on the issue.

And what about here? We cannot recall the public ever having been consulted, and Belgium has not rejected anything. The question was indeed raised on 12 February 2025 in the Chamber’s Health Committee: MP Katleen Bury (VB) questioned Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke^[47]. His response? The amendments would be in line with the Belgian position; they would contain ‘virtually no binding obligations’ and would have no impact on national sovereignty. As for any possible rejection or reservations, these would be decided within CoorMulti, a coordination body between government departments^[48]. There was no mention of consulting Parliament in his response^[49].

Meanwhile, on 26 May 2025 – less than two months before the deadline – the Council of the European Union called on Member States to accept these amendments ‘without reservation’, ‘in the interests of the Union^[50]’. Nevertheless, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic rejected the amendments^[51]. Belgium, for its part, remained silent.

Yet Belgian citizens had appealed to their elected representatives. Dominique Dehareng, a doctor from Liège, wrote to the Prime Minister and senators on several occasions before the deadline, calling for the amendments^[52] to be rejected. The Reprise en Main Citoyenne collective also called for their rejection in June 2025^[53]. Did these calls receive a response?

Is another approach possible?

As recently as last October, the UN General Assembly adopted a political declaration on pandemics by 153 votes to 3: the United States, Israel and Argentina^[54]. A ‘non-binding’ declaration, like the one from 2023 that we have already analysed^[55]. It is clear that non-binding declarations are piling up, that binding regulations are coming into force, and that citizens, for their part, are still not being consulted.

There is, however, one more step to go. Once the PABS Annex has been adopted, the treaty will have to be ratified by parliaments^[56]. This will be an opportunity to ask our elected representatives what they had to say about the regulation. Citizens must know what is being decided on their behalf. We are supposed to live in a democracy: is it normal that a text which grants the WHO the power to declare a global emergency and issue health recommendations has not been the subject of any public debate?

Finally, a follow-up question: who stands to gain from this not being debated?

By Nicolas Mertens, citizen journalist for BAM!

Photo montage by BAM!