We are told that, in a world of multiplying health emergencies, it has become necessary to give up some independence in return for safety. It is a tribute to those backing this agenda through the World Health Organisation (WHO) that this message continues to gain traction. If humans are important, then we should also understand its flaws, and decide whether they matter.
1. The World Health Organisation is not independent, and is significantly privately directed.
Early WHO funding was dominated by ‘assessed’ contributions from countries, based on their national income, and the WHO decided how to use this core funding to achieve greatest impact. Now, WHO funding is mainly ‘specified’, meaning that the funder may decide how and where the work will be done. The WHO has become a conduit through which a funder can implement programmes from which they stand to benefit. These funders are increasingly private entities; the second largest funder of the WHO is the foundation of a software entrepreneur and Pharma investor.
In ceding power to the WHO, a state will be ceding power to the funders of the WHO. They can then profit by imposing the increasingly centralised and commodity-based approach that the WHO is taking.
2. People in democracies cannot be subject to dictatorships.
The WHO rightly represents all countries. This means that member states run by military dictatorships or other non-democratic regimes have an equal say at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO’s governing body.
In ceding power to the WHO, democratic States are therefore sharing decision-making power over the health of their own citizens with these non-democratic states, some of which will have geopolitical reasons to restrict the movement of a democratic state’s people and harm its economy. While equal say in policy may be appropriate for a purely advisory organisation, ceding actual power over citizens to such an organisation is obviously incompatible with democracy.
3. The WHO is not accountable to those it seeks to control.
Democratic states have systems through which those allowed to wield power over citizens wield it only at the citizens’ will, and are subject to independent courts for malfeasance or gross and harmful incompetence. This is necessary to address the corruption that always arises, as institutions are run by humans. Like other branches of the United Nations, the WHO is answerable to itself and the geo-politics of the WHA. Even the UN secretariat has limited influence as the WHO operates under its own constitution.
No one will be held accountable for the nearly quarter million children that UNICEF estimates were killed by policies that the WHO promoted in South Asia. None of the up to 10 million girls forced into child marriage by the WHO’s Covid policies will have any path for redress. Such lack of accountability may be acceptable if an institution is simply giving advice, but it is completely unacceptable for any institution that has powers to restrict, mandate or even censor a country’s citizens.
4. Centralisation through the WHO is poor policy by incompetent people.
Before the influx of private money, the WHO’s focus was high burden endemic infectious disease, such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS. These are strongly associated with poverty, as are those arising from malnutrition and poor sanitation. Public health experience tells us that addressing such preventable or treatable diseases is the best way to lengthen lives and promote sustainable good health. They are most effectively addressed by people on the ground, with local knowledge of behaviour, culture and disease epidemiology. This involves empowering communities to manage their own health. The WHO once emphasised such decentralisation, advocating for the strengthening of primary care. It was consistent with the fight against fascism and colonialism within which the WHO arose.
Centralised approaches to health, in contrast, require communities and individuals to comply with dictats that ignore local heterogeneity and community priorities. Malaria is not an issue to Icelandic people, but it absolutely dwarfs Covid in Uganda. Both human rights and effective interventions require local knowledge and direction. The WHO pushed mass Covid vaccination onto sub-Saharan Africa for nearly two years through its most expensive program to date, while knowing a large majority of the population were already immune, half were under 20, and deaths from each of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDs absolutely dwarfed COVID-19 mortality.
The WHO’s staff are rarely experts. Experience in the 2009 Swine flu and West African Ebola outbreaks demonstrated that. Many have spent decades sitting in an office with minimal experience in programme implementation or practical disease management. Country quotas and the nepotism associated with large international organisations mean that most countries will have far greater expertise within their borders than exists in a closeted bureaucracy in Geneva.
5. Real pandemics are not common, and are not becoming more common.
Pandemics due to respiratory viruses, as the WHO pointed out in 2019, are rare events. They have occurred about once per generation over the past 120 years. Since the advent of antibiotics (for primary or secondary infections), mortality has dropped dramatically. An increase in mortality recorded during COVID-19 was complicated by definitions (‘with’ versus ‘of’), the average age of death was over 75 and death was unusual in healthy people. The global infection mortality rate was not greatly different to influenza. Tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS and most other common infections kill at a much younger age, imparting a greater burden in life years lost.
In summary
It makes no sense to grant a foreign-based, unaccountable institution powers that contradict democratic norms and good public health policy. More so when this institution has limited expertise and a poor track record, is directed by private interests and influenced by authoritarian governments. This is obviously counter to what a government in a democracy is supposed to do.
This is not a matter of domestic political rivalries. However, the public relations departments of the prospective beneficiaries of this perpetual health emergency project would like us to believe it is. We are currently funding the dismantling of our own independence and ceding our human rights to a small group that stands to benefit from our impoverishment, financed from a war chest accrued through the pandemic just ended. We don’t have to. It is as straightforward to see through this as it should be to stop it. All that is needed is clarity, honesty and a little courage.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The two-tier approach to arbitration, justice or anything where simple common sense should apply has now been deliberately inverted. The intention is to confuse and throw the population off balance, a sort of crude update to the C1984 crap of masks, social distancing and the ‘safe and effective.’
Off-com like our judicial system is being run from the outside. There is to be no concession to honesty or decency. In fact if a decision can be made which flouts or inverts common sense, honesty and decency then that is the decision that will be made. Thus, GB News challenging the Off-com decision will simply amount to pissing in the wind although they are absolutely right to have a go.
Kneel’s Davos Britain.
The BBC do it every day and counting over the Climate!
GB News voluntarily agrees to be regulated by Ofcom.
Why?
Well exactly, they had their chance with a proper journalist Mark Steyn, but realised they have no spine.
Clearly, the elite is starting to feel a little bit scared of GB News.
Can’t think why, they’ve killed off all the proper journalists and have Neil Oliver safely confined to Youtube.
When attack comes closer to the enemy the flak increases.
“Will Ofcom turn its guns on ITV in the same way it has GB News? Don’t hold your breath”
It may do but will probably do it while kicking & screaming!
They are an utter disgrace.
A little off-topic but has anyone noticed how Yvette ‘Allo ‘Allo Cooper has aged since 5th July whereas 2TKeir looks like he has not lost a night’s sleep since becoming PM.
2TK is IMHO disconnected from the significance of events as they unfold in the world around him with a total empathy by-pass from birth.
He does not understand and it all goes over his head.
This is why he can keep blathering on as if nothing has happened because to him nothing has.
David Starkey has strongly hinted at the reason why, which I reached some time ago.
Keir-Ching! is on the spectrum. He shows no empathy because he doesn’t “understand” it.
I agree and thought so too.
However, let no one be in any confusion about autstic people.
The high functioning verbal ones are used to disguise and cover up the fact the majority are non-verbal autistics who will need help and care and often residential care for the rest of their lives.
And the numbers keep on increasing and it is a real increase.
The increase has causes and no one cares less to find out what the causes are in order to stop this disaster for children.
I was shocked to learn recently from two people independently that autistic children forced into mainstream classrooms commit suicide.
The two people concerned had that distressing direct experience in their class at two different schools.
How much of that is going on I have no idea and I’ll bet the DfE keeps not records nor statistics of how common it is.
But to encounter two people simultaneously at the same time at the same place who told of each experiencing exactly the same is either a bizarre coincidence or suggests this is more common than anyone realises.
Spot on! It’s the emotionless facial expression that is the giveaway! He just doesn’t ”get it”!
PS 2TK’s insistence the Southport and other ‘riots‘ were by the ‘Far Right‘ is also consistent with his disconnect.
He just does not understand and explains it all away with a dismissive simplistic ‘they’re all Far Right‘ when he was entirely Far Wrong as usual.
Additionally, when he tipped up in Southport to lay his wreath or bunch of flowers or whatever it was it was all clumsily done and so obviously pre-planned and orchestrated as a semi-formal sort of ceremony.
Again, consistent with a man who has no conception of the significance of events happening around him.
He is wholly unable to do anything ex tempore, being incapable of spontaneity.
Everything has to be planned in advance.
This is also consistent with his inability to respond at all to Rishi Sunak’s challenges and questions when they were in a TV debate together.
‘Muppet’ comes to mind but whose hand is it up his arse pulling all the strings?
The Establishment is obviously getting very nervous about GB News.
Leading Labour politicians and Ministers now have no option but to appear on it and be interviewed when previously they could not be bothered.
Let us hope GB News will continue to address the issues other news media do not.
Will other news media ever realise that is major factor in GB News’ success? They probably already have but just carry on regardless as they have always done.
Sue Offcom?