Everything you need to know about the 1% Treaty and the war on disease
The 1% Treaty is a global agreement where nations redirect just 1% of their military spending to fund pragmatic clinical trials integrated into standard healthcare. This gives everyone 1% more security (fewer nuclear weapons pointed at them) while accelerating access to life-saving treatments by years.
1% is strategically chosen because it's small enough to be feasible (doesn't compromise national defense) but large enough to be transformative ($27.2B annually). It's also psychologically powerful: everyone gets 1% more security while gaining years of life through faster medical progress.
Virtually nothing. Modern militaries have massive redundancy and waste. A 1% reduction is easily absorbed through efficiency improvements, reduced procurement waste, or delayed upgrades. No country loses meaningful defensive capability, but everyone gains health security.
The treaty is designed for universal participation, but the top 15 military spenders (US, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, UK, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Australia, Canada, Israel, Spain) account for 81% of global military spending. Their participation alone would fund the entire system.
Pragmatic trials test treatments in real-world healthcare settings using existing medical records and routine care, rather than creating expensive artificial research environments. Patients receive normal care while data is automatically collected, making trials 82x cheaper than traditional methods.
Traditional trials cost $20B+ in recruitment, $15B in manual data collection, $10B in dedicated research sites, and $5B in regulatory overhead. Pragmatic trials eliminate these costs by using existing healthcare infrastructure, electronic health records, and streamlined protocols. Total savings: $58.6B annually.
Yes. They follow the same scientific principles and regulatory standards. The difference is efficiency, not rigor. Oxford's RECOVERY trial (pragmatic design) enrolled 40,000 patients in months and found effective COVID treatments while traditional trials were still recruiting. Same safety, 82x faster and cheaper.
Everything: new drugs, repurposed existing medications, medical devices, surgical techniques, behavioral interventions, prevention strategies. Pragmatic trials excel at comparing real-world effectiveness of treatments, finding optimal doses, and identifying which patients benefit most.
Immediate impact. Pragmatic trials can begin enrolling patients within weeks of approval. Results for acute conditions (like COVID treatments) can come in months. Chronic disease trials take longer but still deliver answers years faster than traditional methods.
The peace dividend is a potential secondary benefit: if redirecting 1% of military spending to health research also reduces global conflict, this could save $114B annually. However, this benefit requires geopolitical assumptions and is NOT included in our primary ROI calculations. The core value proposition is the timeline shift - accelerating when cures arrive saves billions of lives regardless of any peace effects.
We don't claim it definitely does. The peace dividend is a potential secondary benefit, not a guaranteed outcome. The primary value comes from the timeline shift: accelerating clinical trials and eliminating efficacy lag saves billions of lives from diseases. Any reduction in conflict would be an additional bonus, but we don't rely on it for our core ROI calculations.
The peace dividend is speculative - it depends on whether redirecting military spending actually reduces conflict. Global conflict costs are estimated at $14.4 trillion annually (Institute for Economics and Peace), so a 1% reduction would be significant if achieved. However, our primary value proposition doesn't depend on this. The timeline shift benefits (billions of lives saved from earlier cures) are based on concrete disease burden data and trial acceleration estimates.
Yes. The 3.5% rule (from Harvard research) shows that when 3.5% of a population actively supports a cause, it reaches a tipping point for systemic change. We're building that coalition. Plus, the 1% Treaty offers something rare in politics: a win-win where everyone gains security and health.
DIH operates as a decentralized network, not a centralized bureaucracy. Participating nations contribute 1% of military spending to a transparent fund. Research priorities are set democratically with input from patients, doctors, and scientists. Trials are conducted by existing healthcare systems. No new massive institution required.
Pharma companies benefit too. Pragmatic trials reduce their R&D costs by 82x, accelerating time-to-market and expanding the range of profitable treatments. Repurposed drugs and rare disease treatments become economically viable. The current system is broken for everyone; this fixes it.
Blockchain-based fund tracking, open-source protocols, public trial registries, and real-time results publication. All spending is transparent. All data is public. All decisions are documented. The decentralized structure prevents any single entity from controlling the system.
Answer the question on our homepage, share your referral link, join our divisions registry if you represent an organization, donate to support the movement, contact your representatives, and spread the word. Every voice counts toward the 3.5% tipping point.
Join our divisions registry, connect with allied organizations, advocate for pragmatic trial adoption in your institution, and help design protocols. We need clinical expertise to make this vision real.
Champion the 1% Treaty in your government, introduce legislation supporting pragmatic trials, allocate funding for pilot programs, and build international coalitions. We can provide policy briefs, talking points, and constituent support.
You still benefit. The treaty creates global public goods: faster medical progress, reduced conflict, and shared knowledge. Even non-participating countries gain access to trial results and treatment advances. But participating countries get priority access and influence over research priorities.
Contact us or dive deeper into the research and evidence