Fact check: Carney signed the new WHO pandemic agreement again without oversight by parliament! This is egregious !

1. Summary of the results

The claim about Carney signing the WHO pandemic agreement without parliamentary oversight appears to be fundamentally incorrect. The WHO Pandemic Agreement (WHOPA) was actually adopted through a collective vote at the World Health Assembly, with 124 countries voting in favor, zero objections, and 11 abstentions ^{[1] [2]}. The agreement has not yet been opened for individual country signatures - this will only happen after next year's World Health Assembly ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original statement:

• The agreement explicitly states that the WHO cannot direct or order specific policy actions by member states ^[2]
• The agreement will require ratification by national legislative bodies before taking effect ^[1]
• It will only enter into force after receiving 60 ratifications ^[1]
• The United States did not participate in the final vote ^{[2] [3]}
• The next step is drafting a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to be part of a larger narrative that misrepresents the WHO's authority and the treaty process:

• The statement plays into sovereignty concerns that have been raised about the treaty ^[4], despite explicit provisions in the agreement stating that WHO cannot change national laws ^[1]
• The claim about lack of parliamentary oversight is particularly misleading since the agreement specifically includes provisions for legislative review ^[1]
• The personalization of the issue around "Carney" appears to be a mischaracterization of the collective decision-making process that actually took place ^[5]

Those who benefit from spreading such misinformation might include:

• Political actors seeking to capitalize on sovereignty concerns
• Groups opposed to international cooperation in health matters
• Media outlets seeking to generate controversy around international agreements