Alarmed by the far-reaching consequences, the MWGFD is calling for the immediate revocation
of the agreement to the WHO pandemic treaty.
On June 5, 2025, the association Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Freiheit und Demokratie, MWGFD e.V., sent an open
letter to all members of the German Bundestag and state parliaments to draw attention to the serious political and
legal concerns in connection with the WHO Pandemic Agreement (PA) and the revised International Health Regulations (IHR).
At the center of their criticism are the non-transparent creation of the treaties, the unlawful voting, the lack of parliamentary
control and the potential interference in national sovereignty as well as the federal
structures and democratic decision-making processes.
The physicians and scientists of the MWGFD demand concrete measures such as a legally binding translation of the treaties
into German, a comprehensive parliamentary consultation in all committees concerned and finally the revocation
of the approval by the Federal Government - or otherwise the withdrawal of Germany from the WHO.
Listen to the full letter that was sent to all members of the Bundestag and state parliaments.
Open letter to the members of the German Bundestag and the state parliaments June 05, 2025
Back to common sense in health policy:
Revocation of consent to the WHO pandemic treaty.
The Association of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy (MWGFD e.V.) calls on
politicians to return to common sense in health policy.
The German government must immediately revoke the German delegation's approval of the WHO pandemic treaty - at least until
the political parties at federal and state level have dealt with the treaty in detail and transparently and have approved it.
The threats to Germany's sovereignty concealed in the treaty must not be administered at (ministerial)
administrative level, but must also be politically accountable.
To our regret, neither WHO treaty played a role in the negotiations to form a coalition or in the coalition agreement.
Both the Bundestag and the state parliaments were excluded. A German version does not exist.
The negotiators were led exclusively by the EU Commission, which is now demanding that the outcome of the
negotiations be implemented 1:1 in the member states.
At the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) on June 1, 2024, the German government had already demonstrated that it did not seem
to be bothered by the fact that the 60-page International Health Regulations (IHR) were drawn up in
violation of international law and largely in secret.
The fact that the pandemic treaty (PA), which was also due to be adopted, did not materialize was largely due to the African
(equity) states; the German WHA delegation, led by Health Minister Karl Lauterbach, would probably have
approved the PA draft treaty in any version without hesitation.
This is also demonstrated by the fact that it accepted the procedure for approving the International Health Regulations (IHR)
without objection - even though this violated applicable law:
- The deadlines for submitting the amendments were not met (according to Article 55 of the IHR, they should have been
submitted four months in advance; in fact, the last amendment was only inserted at 21:07 on the last day of the meeting).
- The voting rules were also not followed correctly:
It is questionable whether a majority of the members entitled to vote were actually present, and an
official vote by show of hands did not take place.
It is still unclear whether the result of the so-called "consensus vote" is legally valid at all.
However, despite this undemocratic farce in violation of international law with regard to the IHR and despite the clearly
failed attempt at a pandemic agreement, the WHO did not let up and attempted to pass the treaty after all in the
subsequent negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Board (INB), which were also kept secret.
Apparently with success: In a WHO press release dated April 15, 2025, it was made to appear that the patent disputes had been
resolved, that the treaty had finally created the "voluntary and consensual conditions for technology transfer" and
was now ready for adoption at the 78th World Health Assembly.
However, the wording of the agreement was published far too late.
The fact that the real sticking point of the contract, the PABS system (Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing), was
outsourced to an "annex" of the contract, which is to be negotiated and decided on later, was also discreetly concealed.
Also not mentioned was the WHO withdrawal of the USA and Argentina (May 27, 2025) due to "fundamental
differences" and the preservation of national sovereignty in health matters with regard to pandemic management.
The announced withdrawal of Slovakia was also not addressed - the country refuses to approve the draft treaty until the
government and parliament have first seen the full text of the treaty and given their consent on this basis.
Slovakian Prime Minister Fico remained adamant.
He called for transparency instead of backroom deals and complained that the most democratic of
all institutions, the vote, was being prevented.
But this is exactly what happened late in the evening of May 20, 2025, when behind closed doors the 78th WHA quietly and secretly
waved through the first part of the controversial pandemic treaty - without public announcement, without transparent preparation,
without debate, without publication of the draft treaty, without the participation of civil society actors, without any democratic
legitimacy and without effective legal intervention options.
However, the feigned unity and formal acceptance conceal the continuing dissent:
What has been a contentious issue for over three years - namely the PABS system - has been
redefined as an "annex" and put on the back burner.
PABS is intended to regulate the worldwide distribution of pathogen samples and genetic information
(also to private actors) and their commercialization.
Negotiations are to continue until 2026.
The pandemic treaty cannot come into force until then.
However, there are no plans to thematize or even ban gain-of-function research.
It is not enough for the new Federal Minister of Health, Nina Warken, to declare pithily that "the world needs a strong WHO" -
and then provide it with an additional 10 million euros at short notice to compensate for the loss of funding
due to the US withdrawal and the freezing of USAID grants.
Especially not when just a few days earlier - on April 2, 2025 - former Health Minister Karl Lauterbach had increased Germany's
commitment by a further two million euros to a total of 317 million euros during a lightning visit to the WHO Hub for
Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence (Charité/RKI) in Berlin together with WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus -
with the sweeping conclusion: "The WHO is indispensable!"
It would have been more correct to say: "The WHO cannot be reformed!"
In the meantime, China has agreed to cover the remaining amount.
And this also raises fundamental questions, for example about the CV of the WHO Director-General, the reasons for the USA's
withdrawal from the WHO and the appointment of North Korean Health Minister Jong Min Pak to the WHO Executive Board.
It's not just about financial aspects.
Instead, the WHO's unconvincing work to date, its political positions, alliances (e.g. with the WEF, various foundations,
etc.) and the content and objectives of the planned treaties should be critically scrutinized, analysed and thoroughly noted.
Global resistance has already weakened the WHO's position and led to concessions in the revised draft treaty - for example, by
weakening censorship mechanisms, toning down enforcement powers and postponing specific
interventions in national health competencies.
Numerous critical elements remain - such as the right of direction and coordination, the One Health approach, questions of
financing, production and distribution of medicines and vaccines, digital monitoring mechanisms, the handling of intellectual
property, the WHO's power of definition, the role of the Conference of the Parties and the lack of legal protection.
All of this should - especially against the background of the considerable influence of the pharmaceutical industry, the
contract history and the entire procedure - set alarm bells ringing in the ears of anyone with a sense of
reason - including those with political responsibility.
The MWGFD calls for: - the WHO treaties (IHR and PA) to be translated into German for public and
parliamentary discourse (legal translation, court-proof);
- to commission the scientific services of the German Bundestag to examine the treaties for
their consequences on all sides (risk analysis);
- the translated WHO treaties (IHR and PA) are to be discussed in detail and decided upon not only in the
Health Committee or the Finance Committee, but in all relevant committees of the Bundestag;
- ensure a parliamentary impact assessment - also through cross-party discussion and
treatment in the plenary of the Bundestag;
- that both treaties are also dealt with in the same way in the state parliaments, as health issues
directly affect the federal structure of our country;
- that the communication to the media and the public also identifies the potential risk factors of the two contracts.
Advantages and disadvantages must be presented transparently and specifically.
There must be no more room for intransparency and political influence.
- that the government rejects the pandemic agreement: the government must object to the
IHR agreement by July 19, 2025 (opting out).
Otherwise, Germany should follow the US and Argentinian approach and leave the WHO.
- that the conduct of negotiations between the EU Commission and the WHO will in future be more
closely linked to national parliamentary treatment.
Every partial result of the WGIHR (Working Group on International Health Regulations) or the INB
(Intergovernmental Negotiating Board) must be followed up in parliament and corrected if necessary;
- that the work of the German WHO delegates and the representatives in the committees of the WGIHR,
INB or the corresponding EU committees is much more broadly agreed and coordinated in parliament.
Her work is not only relevant to health policy, but also prepares far-reaching political decisions in numerous other policy areas -
such as finance, (land) economy, foreign affairs, EU and constitutional law, culture and media, research, home
affairs, labor and social affairs and other departments.
YOU and PA are jeopardizing the sovereignty of our state, violating our constitutional and democratic
principles and playing with the core of our constitution, the free democratic basic order.
The planned regulations for IHR and pandemic agreements jeopardize the sovereignty of Germany and other states,
contradict fundamental constitutional and democratic principles and potentially encroach on the heart of
our Basic Law - the free and democratic basic order.
On behalf of the association MWGFD e.V.