Will dangerous (including lab-made) pathogens be in safe hands at WHO?
- jearungby
- 7 hours ago
- 8 min read
By Dr. Jeanne Rungby, MD.
in May 2026 the World Health Assembly (WHA) was supposed to decide if the WHO shall be trusted control of all laboratory-made and natural pathogens with pandemic potential, such as new viruses and bacteria. The final decision is postponed to either a “special” WHA-meeting in 2026 or May 2027.
Should this “annex” be adopted, the WHO, that means the Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus will be in sovereign control of the licensure for testing and production of rapid vaccines as treatment in case of pandemics.
After adoption of the annex dealing with PABS, Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System, the main Pandemic Agreement can be sent to national parliaments for formal approval. The PABS-annex is probably the most important part of the main Pandemic Agreement.
What is the core goal of PABS?
PABS is claimed to ensure that during future pandemics, countries can quickly “share” pathogen materials and genetic sequence information (e.g., of a new virus) so that tests, treatments, (patents) and vaccines can be developed rapidly.
This means that all control of dangerous pathogens – whether lab made or not – will be in the hands of unelected persons, who enjoy diplomatic immunity and cannot be held accountable.
This system seems to be out of democratic control.
It is served as a part of a greater good: This “Benefit-Sharing" Principle stands for:
In return for sharing this critical information, the system is designed to ensure that the resulting “benefits” (such as vaccines and diagnostics) are shared “fairly and equitably” among all countries.
Let's take a moment to consider the possible consequences of the conflict of interest that lies in the fact that those who develop diagnostic tests and earn royalties on vaccine patents are the same people. It is possible that these people are interested in developing tests that ensure false positive responses, which could lead to higher earnings for vaccine manufacturers.
And could these same people have an interest in not having ICD-codes for adverse effects after vaccines?
As usual with NGOs like WHO and UN want to sell something to the national policy makers, the possible benefits are highlighted, while risks are downplayed.
Nevertheless, it seems that this sharing of pathogens and especially Dual Function Research (Gain of Function Research) in dangerous pathogens, have been going on for decades in some of the WHO Collaborating Centres such as US-NIAID-NIH, US-FDA, US-CDC, Universities, labs and more all around the world. World Council for Health has written a report on the WHO-CCs in US and UK.
Especially worth mentioning is the USA-491 WHO-CC at National Institute of allergy and Infectious Diseases under National Institute of Health. See screenshot from WHO-CC-homepage below.
Jon Fleetwood have exposed numerous examples of Gain of Function research funded by NIAID.
As an example of many, one of his recent Substack’s is about a study into chimeric creation of a pathogenic Bird Flu strain.
He writes “Scientists have lab-engineered brand-new reassortant “Frankenstein” bird flu viruses said to carry genetic components from the 2024 dairy cow H5N1 outbreak and a purportedly fatal 2025 Washington H5N5 case, creating pathogens the paper warns may possess enhanced immune-evasion potential in humans… The stated purpose of the study was to determine whether swapping different viral surface configurations into H5 bird flu systems could create strains against which humans possess far weaker immunity.”
The corresponding author of this paper is Scott E. Hensley (S.E.H.), who is a co-inventor on patents that describe the use of nucleoside-modified mRNA as a vaccine platform. Under competing interests S.E.H. reports receiving consulting fees from Sanofi, Pfizer, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck. Another author of the paper. A.S.L. is now an employee of Sanofi but was affiliated with the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania when this work was completed. The authors declare no other competing interests.
The screenshot below is from the WCH-report. It shows some of the US-WHO-Collaborating centres:
It all seems innocent, but a suspicion is, that the real goal of the PABS-adoption is to lur nations into complicity through “legalisation” of something that may already have been going on – illegally - in many WHO-CC-labs during the years.
This way - presumablbly - nations tax-funds could become cash cows for vaccine manufacturers.
Warnings from the Global Health Responsibility Agency
Legal Advisor, Dr. Silvia Behrendt from the Global Health Responsibility Agency, warns that the draft – the PABS annex - institutionalizes routine access to the world's most dangerous pathogens without:
· adequate biosecurity safeguards,
· accountability mechanisms, or
· democratic oversight.
She warns that proceeding with the current text would create
a high-risk biosecurity hazard!
Unchecked power will concentrate in the WHO Director-Generals hands, and
violate existing international law.
Who is the negotiation body?
The annex is being drafted and negotiated by an Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), which was established by the World Health Assembly. The stakeholders represent entities with great commercial and political interests.
During the November 2025 meeting, the IGWG also gathered views from civil society and industry representatives (including the pharmaceutical sector) on the proposed system.
In the next step the IGWG aims to finalize the annex for adoption by the World Health Assembly in 2027. After adoption, the main Pandemic Agreement can then be sent to national parliaments for formal approval.
The Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG)
IGWG is composed of 194 Member States represented by diplomats, health officials, and technical experts (no democratic elected policy makers).
“the IGWG reflects a commitment to equity, transparency, and global solidarity in preparing for and responding to future health threats”
The Bureau – the Leadership Structure - is responsible for draft of texts and managing the negotiation process.
How much influence does unelected entities (observers) have?
The observers are claimed to have “limited” Participation. They are allowed to attend IGWG sessions, but they have no voting or decision-making power.
Observers are UN and intergovernmental organizations, Philanthropic and global health entities (GAVI, CEPI), Civil society, NGOs and Industry representatives.
Observers can, despite “limited” participation, influence the process in many ways.
Some of these Observers are also among the biggest conditional financial contributors to the WHO.
The figure below is from an article in BMJ, 2025.
These Observers are allowed to participate in dedicated sessions where they are invited to present their views and by submitting written input, rather than by directly speaking during the main sessions where member states are debating the text. They will also provide technical expertise, do public media advocacy and mobilize public opinion.
Four main points of concerns.
Dr. Silvia Behrendt from Global Health Responsibility Agency has submitted an urgent legal notice for the IGWG meeting in February 2026:
Her main concerns related to the PABS are divided into four subjects.
She argues that the current PABS-draft is
1. institutionally and legally indefensible.
She has great Process and Legitimacy Concerns:
The influence of the stakeholders is unacceptable: More than 400 "Relevant Stakeholders" (including pharmaceutical industry representatives) can observe negotiations and receive daily draft texts. It argues this violates WHO's own conflict-of-interest rules (FENSA) and effectively allows commercial interests to co-draft a public health treaty.
Additionally, the EU participation is problematic: She questions the European Union's role as a quasi-party to the negotiations, arguing that the EU's primary interests are industrial and commercial, not public health, which distorts the treaty's purpose.
Furthermore, there is a substantial lack of democratic oversight: The process is criticized for being conducted with minimal transparency and accountability to the citizens of member states.
2. Catastrophic Biosecurity Risks
The PABS is a "Biosecurity Hazard in Its Own Right": By creating a standing architecture for routine access to pathogens with pandemic potential (PPP) and their digital sequence information (DSI), global biosecurity risks will dramatically increase.
The declared and highly suspected laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 should be a great lesson to learn from. Any new system must be designed to prevent a recurrence of such a catastrophic event, not merely address natural spillovers.
The PABS contain Inadequate Safeguards: The current draft lacks enforceable controls like:
· Mandatory biosecurity and biosafety standards for all downstream users.
· Robust cybersecurity for genetic databases.
· Traceability and auditability of shared pathogens and data.
· Concrete prohibitions on Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC) and enhancement pathways.
3. Institutional and Legal Defects:
The power of the WHO Director-General (DG) is unchecked. The draft gives the DG a dangerous concentration of power, combining:
· Executive Power: To declare a pandemic emergency, which triggers the entire system.
· Quasi-Legislative Power: To issue recommendations that become de facto mandates.
· Quasi-Judicial Power: To decide in disputes over the system's contracts and compliance.
· Accountability Vacuum: The DG's power is unchecked by independent oversight. The system relies on WHO's immunity from legal action, creating a structure where there is "no effective remedy" for harm caused by its decisions.
· Violation of International Law: The draft PABS Annex conflicts with pre-existing, binding international obligations, particularly:
· The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and UNSCR 1540, which prohibit assisting or encouraging the acquisition of biological weapons. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, creating legal fragmentation and uncertainty.
4. Operational and Economic Flaws:
· Commercial Contracting as Global Governance: The WHO is being positioned as a "global contractual power," entering private-law contracts with manufacturers to manage the donations and monetary contribution requirements. This is seen as a role for an intergovernmental health agency beyond its legal authority.
· Rule-of-Law Deficit in Contracting: The system lacks transparent eligibility criteria, equal treatment guarantees, independent dispute resolution, and anti-corruption safeguards for managing the billions of dollars in contracts and "annual monetary contributions."
· Market Distortion: The system could create an anti-competitive, exclusionary market allocation mechanism that favours a limited set of "participating manufacturers."
The Proposed Solution: "Global Health Responsibility"
Dr. Silvia Behrendt calls for a fundamental redesign of the document, based on its proposed "Global Health Responsibility" framework.
The current "Global Health Security" paradigm must be replaced with a framework called Global Health Responsibility. This framework's key pillars are:
· Human Dignity as the Baseline: Shifting from an emergency, securitized model to one grounded in human rights.
· Enforceable Safeguards: Legally binding biosecurity, traceability, and dual-use controls, not just aspirational language.
· Accountability and Remedy: A functioning liability and compensation regime with independent dispute settlement and individual standing for those harmed.
· Clear Limits on Power: Demarcating and limiting the powers of the WHO Secretariat and Director-General, subjecting them to review.
· Compliance with Existing Law: Ensuring the new system is consistent with and does not undermine the BWC, UNSCR 1540, and other treaties.
Dr. Silvia Behrendt’s final message:
In conclusion, the urgent legal notice serves as a formal warning that the PABS Annex in its current form is fundamentally flawed and dangerous.
It argues that its adoption would be beyond its legal authority and
would create a system with foreseeable catastrophic risks and no accountability.
What is FENSA?
FENSA is a framework of engagement with Non-State actors.
This framework is supposed to outline the limits of influence from these Non-State actors, to assure that member countries are not sidelined and to assure that the policy of the WHO is not run by these Non-State actors.
The WHO has major influence on national policy in majority of the worlds countries, especially when it comes to National and Regional Medicines Agencies, health policy, education and research.
More than 80 % of the WHO’s funding comes from non-state actors such as the GAVI and the pharmaceutical industry.
To counter critics and to assure that the WHO is “Independent of influence” from these Non-State actors – the before mentioned “observers” - the FENSA resolution was written.
It appears that, FENSA gives some kind of democratic oversight and control.
But looking closely, it seems like a cosmetic set of principles.
The devil is in the detail – as usual.
In chapter 18, IMPLEMENTATION, it says:
“The Director-General may exercise flexibility, as might be needed in the application of the procedures of this framework in those responses, when he/she deems necessary.”
In other words, all principles agreed upon by member states in the framework (FENSA) are null and void, if it pleases the Director-General.
Source:
The report by Legal Advisor, Dr. Silvia Behrendt from the Global Health Responsibility Agency:
Comments