The WHO Poses a Genuine and Immediate Threat.
Our governments plan to delegate authority over health, families, and societal freedoms to the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) when deemed necessary. The success of this transfer of power relies on the public's lack of awareness about its consequences and the nature of the WHO itself, including its recent policy reversals during the pandemic. When the public becomes informed, there is a greater likelihood that leaders will act in their favor rather than against them.
In late 2019, the WHO issued new recommendations for pandemic influenza, which discouraged strict measures like contact tracing, quarantine, and border closures. They argued that these measures would have minimal impact on controlling an aerosolized respiratory virus like Covid-19 while exacerbating poverty, especially among low-income populations. However, a few months later, the WHO reversed its stance and advocated for the very measures they had previously cautioned against. This resulted in the predicted consequences of increased poverty and shortened life expectancy, particularly affecting the most vulnerable communities, with minimal effect on virus spread.
The driving force behind this policy reversal needs to be understood, as there are ongoing efforts to grant the WHO more authority over international public health priorities. Some powerful pharmaceutical-related interests have been pushing for lockdown approaches for years and have established public-private partnerships to promote their authoritarian approach to public health. Meetings and collaborations involving the WHO, various foundations, and governments further influenced the shift in pandemic policy.
Additionally, the WHO's funding sources, including private investors and pharmaceutical companies, have had a significant impact on its policies. Over time, the influence of these funders has grown, leading to a substantial portion of the WHO's activities being determined by donors' preferences. As a result, the WHO's statements and recommendations began aligning with its private sponsors' interests, leading to the promotion of mass vaccination as the primary solution.
However, this vaccination-for-all approach has faced criticism, as it does not consider the varying risks individuals face from Covid-19. The policies have resulted in rising inequality and adverse consequences, particularly in low-income countries where other health issues, such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS, have worsened due to diverted attention and resources.
Despite the negative impacts on society, certain stakeholders, including private investors and corporate funders, have gained significantly from the pandemic response. As traditional evidence-based public health approaches have been pushed aside, a new public health paradigm driven by software entrepreneurs and pharmaceutical companies has emerged, benefiting some individuals in the field.
The WHO's internal workings are also concerning, as conflicts of interest arise due to private investors and the influence of powerful states that may not prioritize human rights and democracy. The organization's staffing policies are not necessarily designed to ensure technical expertise, which raises questions about the integrity and competency of some of its staff members.
Pandemics, while rare, have become the focus of an expanding industry that seeks financial support from media and political sponsorship. The current pandemic situation has been capitalized on by various interests, eroding democratic principles and concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. While pandemics have historically cost fewer life-years than other prevalent health issues, the response to Covid-19 has raised concerns about the erosion of human freedom for the benefit of private entities and entrepreneurs.
The public health professions have been less inclined to intervene, prioritizing their careers and salaries over taking a stand against harmful policies. Therefore, it becomes crucial for the public to educate themselves about these issues and resist compliance with detrimental measures. The hope lies in the possibility of some leaders stepping forward to address these societal challenges.
