As the World Health Organization (WHO) sounds the alarm on mpox, declaring it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), critics are questioning whether this decision is a necessary precaution or an overreaction that could have far-reaching consequences.
On August 14, 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of mpox in Africa a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).1 This decision, made by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has ignited a fierce debate among health experts, policymakers, and the public. While some view it as a necessary step to curb the spread of a potentially dangerous virus, others see it as an overreach that could have unintended consequences for global health policy and individual rights.
The declaration comes at a time when the world is still grappling with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions about the appropriateness and potential implications of such a high-level alert for a disease that has historically been confined to specific regions.
The Mpox Outbreak: Questioning the 'Facts and Figures'
Challenging the Simplistic Viral Model
While the WHO has presented what it calls "facts and figures" about the mpox outbreak, it's crucial to approach these numbers with a critical eye. The WHO's model of disease causality, which focuses primarily on viral transmission, is increasingly viewed as outdated and overly simplistic by many health experts.
Dr. James Olson-Lee, commenting on the NVIC article, points out: "Understand that viruses are everywhere, some even help us; once they find a host they start replicating and in that process the chances of mutations is always present- so, in a very real sense 'gain of function' research to force mutations is meaningless- it's happening all the time."2
This perspective aligns with the growing body of research on the human virome and microbiome, which has fundamentally challenged our understanding of disease causality over the past 25 years. Unfortunately, this nuanced view of human health seems absent from the WHO's analysis.
The Multifactorial Nature of Disease
Disease occurrence and severity are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including:
- Stress and psychological well-being
- Nutritional status
- Environmental exposures
- Genetic predispositions
- The state of an individual's microbiome and virome
As one commenter on the NVIC article astutely noted, "We live in a literal sea of pathogens. The air, the water, the food, all forms of solid liquid and gas, they are all saturated with pathogens. Always have been. Always will be. They are integrated into our bodies and our environment in many different symbiotic ways which are beneficial for us."3
This holistic view of health and disease is noticeably absent from the WHO's presentation of the mpox situation.
WHO's Reported Numbers: A Limited Perspective
With this context in mind, let's examine the figures presented by the WHO:
According to WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros, there have been more than 14,000 reported cases and 524 reported deaths in Africa this year, a significant increase from previous years.4 The outbreak has been particularly severe in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with cases spreading to new provinces and neighboring countries.
While these numbers are concerning, they provide an incomplete picture of the health situation. They don't account for:
- The overall health status of the affected populations
- Environmental factors that might be contributing to decreased immunity
- Potential misdiagnoses or overdiagnoses due to increased surveillance
- The role of other pathogens or health conditions that might be contributing to symptoms attributed to mpox
The New Strain Narrative: Cause for Skepticism
The WHO has highlighted the emergence of a new mpox strain, or "clade," known as clade 1b, describing it as more severe than clade 2.5 However, this focus on viral mutation as the primary driver of disease spread and severity is reminiscent of similar narratives during the COVID-19 pandemic, which often oversimplified complex health dynamics.
As Barbara Loe Fisher points out, "The public has good reason to question why there are so many pathogens suddenly mutating, like coronavirus and H5N1 avian influenza and monkeypox, which are prompting the accelerated development of more genetically engineered biological products called 'vaccines' in a vacuum of scientific knowledge about how those products could compromise the biological integrity of humans."6
This statement underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing disease outbreaks, one that goes beyond the narrow focus on viral strains and vaccines.
The PHEIC Declaration: Implications and Criticisms
Accelerating Vaccine Access
One of the immediate consequences of the PHEIC declaration is the triggering of the Emergency Use Listing process for two mpox vaccines. Dr. Tedros stated that this would accelerate vaccine access in lower-income countries that have not yet approved the drugs.7
"Emergency Use Listing also enables partners including Gavi and UNICEF to procure vaccines for distribution," Tedros said.8
However, this move has sparked debate about the safety and efficacy of fast-tracked vaccines. Critics argue that the accelerated approval process could compromise thorough safety evaluations, which was the case for the mRNA Covid jabs which were deployed without adequate safety or efficacy testing through an Emergency Use Authorization.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The WHO has developed a $15 million response plan for surveillance, preparedness, and response activities.9 Critics argue that this allocation of resources might be disproportionate given other pressing global health concerns.
"WHO anticipates an immediate funding requirement of an initial US$ 15 million to support surveillance, preparedness and response activities," the organization stated.10
Potential for Overreach
Some experts worry that the PHEIC declaration could lead to unnecessary restrictions on travel and trade, echoing concerns raised during previous global health emergencies. The balance between public health measures and individual liberties remains a contentious issue.
Expert Perspectives: Voices of Caution
Barbara Loe Fisher's Critique
Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), has raised significant concerns about the implications of the WHO's decision. In a recent report, Fisher draws parallels between mpox gain-of-function (GOF) research and controversial GOF studies on coronaviruses and bird flu.11
Fisher states, "The public has good reason to be vaccine hesitant. We have good reason to question why there are so many pathogens suddenly mutating, like coronavirus and H5N1 avian influenza and monkeypox, which are prompting the accelerated development of more genetically engineered biological products called 'vaccines' in a vacuum of scientific knowledge about how those products could compromise the biological integrity of humans."12
This perspective highlights the need for caution and thorough scientific scrutiny before rushing into widespread vaccine deployment.
Children's Health Defense's Concerns
The Children's Health Defense (CHD) organization has also voiced reservations about the WHO's approach. In an article published on August 7, 2024, CHD raised questions about the safety and efficacy of the mpox vaccines that might receive Emergency Use Listing.13
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare expert quoted in the CHD article, pointed out that both available mpox vaccines - Jynneos and ACAM2000 - have known side effects including myocarditis and pericarditis. Nass also highlighted that the efficacy of these vaccines is largely inferred from immunogenicity studies rather than direct testing against disease prevention.14
"Neither of the vaccines are approved for children under age 18, although in 2022, Jynneos received emergency use authorization in the U.S. for children under 18 considered to be at high risk," the CHD article notes.15
Contextualizing the Mpox Emergency
Comparison to Other Health Threats
Critics argue that the focus on mpox may be disproportionate when compared to other, more widespread health issues. For instance:
- Heart disease and cancer collectively claim millions of lives annually.16
- Substance abuse, including alcoholism and tobacco use, continues to be a major contributor to preventable deaths globally.17
- Traffic accidents cause over 1.3 million deaths yearly.18
The question arises: Is the allocation of resources and attention to mpox justified in light of these ongoing health crises?
Lessons from COVID-19
The mpox declaration comes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has left many members of the public wary of emergency health measures. There are concerns about:
- Economic impacts of potential restrictions
- Public trust in health authorities
- The balance between public health measures and individual liberties
As one commenter on the NVIC article noted, "Money, Power and Control is what it's all about. Need to vote them all out and live our lives and not reside in fear. Stand up for ourselves and our families".19
The Role of Pharmaceutical Companies
Vaccine Development and Profit Concerns
The PHEIC declaration has implications for vaccine manufacturers. Critics worry about potential profiteering, drawing parallels to concerns raised during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As Barbara Loe Fisher points out, "several lucrative government contracts have paid the vaccine makers hundreds of millions to stockpile the vaccines".20
Transparency and Accountability
There are calls for greater transparency in the vaccine development process and clearer accountability measures for pharmaceutical companies involved in emergency response efforts.
Global Health Governance: A Broader Perspective
The WHO's Authority and National Sovereignty
The mpox declaration reignites debates about the WHO's authority and its impact on national sovereignty. Some worry that WHO recommendations could become de facto mandatory, pressuring countries to implement measures they might not deem necessary.
The Proposed Pandemic Treaty
Ongoing negotiations for a global pandemic treaty have sparked fears about potential infringements on national decision-making in health matters.21 The mpox declaration adds another layer to this complex debate.
As one NVIC commenter stated, "Our vote continues to be that any medical product, vaccine, therapeutic, or anything likewise associated with a 'public health issue' or crisis, should be prohibited from being patented, thereby removing the financial incentives for these corporations to further develop harmful pathogens which ultimately lead to robust profit for their companies and the pharmaceutical industry in general."22
Conclusion: Balancing Precaution and Proportion
The WHO's declaration of mpox as a PHEIC undoubtedly aims to preemptively address a potential health threat. However, this decision raises important questions about prioritization in global health, the balance between preparedness and overreaction, and the complex interplay between international health governance and national sovereignty.
As we navigate this latest health challenge, it's crucial to maintain a sense of proportion and critical thinking. Health authorities must balance the need for preparedness with respect for civil liberties, national sovereignty, and the multitude of other health priorities facing the global community.
Moving forward, there is a clear need for:
- Increased transparency in decision-making processes for global health emergencies
- More robust mechanisms for international cooperation that respect national sovereignty
- Continued research into the safety and efficacy (or lack thereof) of rapidly developed vaccines
- A holistic approach to global health that considers a wide range of health threats and acknowledges the multifactorial nature of disease
Only through a measured, transparent, and comprehensive approach to global health can we hope to address the myriad challenges we face while maintaining public trust and cooperation. As the world grapples with the implications of this latest PHEIC declaration, it's essential that all stakeholders - from policymakers to the public - engage in informed, critical dialogue about the best path forward.
Interested in standing up for your health rights, locally, nationally and internationally? Join and use Stand for Health Freedom's advocacy portal.
More Related Reading:
Who Funds the WHO? Unseen Power: The WHO Foundation’s Donors and the Potential Impact on Global Health
References
1: Zachary Stieber, "World Health Organization Declares Mpox Outbreak in Africa a Global Health Emergency," The Epoch Times, August 14, 2024.
2: Barbara Loe Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks and the Return of Smallpox Vaccine," National Vaccine Information Center, July 22, 2024.
3: Ibid.
4: Stieber, "World Health Organization Declares Mpox Outbreak."
5: Ibid.
6: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
7: Brenda Baletti, "WHO Triggers Emergency Use Listing for Monkeypox Vaccines," The Defender, August 7, 2024.
8: Ibid.
9: Stieber, "World Health Organization Declares Mpox Outbreak."
10: Ibid.
11: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
12: Ibid.
13: Baletti, "WHO Triggers Emergency Use Listing."
14: Ibid.
15: Ibid.
16: World Health Organization, "The top 10 causes of death," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
17: World Health Organization, "Alcohol," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
18: World Health Organization, "Road traffic injuries," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
19: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
20: Ibid.
21: World Health Organization, "Intergovernmental Negotiating Body," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
22: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
Pandemic Profits: Analyzing the Market Response to WHO's Monkeypox Alert
The World Health Organization's monkeypox emergency declaration sent vaccine stocks soaring, raising questions about who really benefits from global health crises.
A Familiar Scenario Unfolds
On July 23, 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the escalating global monkeypox outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).1 For many, this announcement triggered an unsettling sense of déjà vu, reminiscent of the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, for a select group of pharmaceutical companies specializing in vaccines and antivirals, the WHO's decision signaled a potential windfall.
Market Reaction: Investors Bet on Vaccine Makers
Within hours of the WHO announcement, stock prices for companies with monkeypox vaccine candidates or existing smallpox vaccines (which offer cross-protection) saw significant gains. Bavarian Nordic, the Danish biotech firm behind the Jynneos vaccine, saw its shares jump by 27% in the days following the declaration.2 Other beneficiaries included SIGA Technologies, maker of the antiviral tecovirimat, whose stock climbed by 17%.3
This immediate market response highlights the complex relationship between global health crises and pharmaceutical profits. The financial opportunities presented by such emergencies raise questions about incentives and pricing.
The Major Players: Who Stands to Gain?
Three primary vaccine suppliers are at the forefront of the monkeypox response:
- Bavarian Nordic (Jynneos/Imvanex/Imvamune)
- Emergent BioSolutions (ACAM2000)
- Tonix Pharmaceuticals (TNX-801, in development)
Bavarian Nordic's Jynneos vaccine, already approved for smallpox and monkeypox in the U.S., received expedited approval for monkeypox in Europe following the WHO declaration.4 The company has ramped up production and is in discussions with multiple countries for vaccine supply agreements.
Emergent BioSolutions, while facing challenges related to its COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing issues, still maintains a significant stockpile of its ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine.5
Tonix Pharmaceuticals, a smaller player, is developing TNX-801, a live virus vaccine based on horsepox. While still in preclinical stages, the company's stock has seen increased interest due to the potential for a next-generation monkeypox vaccine.6
Supply and Demand: Manufacturing Constraints
The sudden global demand for monkeypox vaccines has put pressure on existing supply chains. Bavarian Nordic, the primary supplier of the Jynneos vaccine, faces the challenge of rapidly scaling up production. The company has announced plans to expand its manufacturing capacity but acknowledges that meeting global demand will take time.7
This supply bottleneck raises concerns about equitable vaccine distribution, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. The WHO has called for fairness in vaccine allocation, but historical patterns suggest that wealthier nations may secure the bulk of early supplies.8
Pricing Pressures and Profit Margins
As governments scramble to secure vaccine doses, questions arise about pricing and profit margins. Bavarian Nordic has not publicly disclosed its pricing structure for the Jynneos vaccine, citing confidentiality agreements with various countries.9 However, analysts estimate that the company stands to generate significant revenue from vaccine sales in the coming years.
The delicate balance between fair pricing and maintaining incentives for pharmaceutical innovation is once again at the forefront of public debate. Critics argue that companies should not profiteer from a global health emergency.10
Long-Term Business Impact: Beyond the Immediate Crisis
While the current focus is on addressing the immediate monkeypox outbreak, pharmaceutical companies and investors are also considering the long-term implications of this event. Key questions include:
- Will monkeypox become endemic, requiring ongoing vaccination programs?
- How will this outbreak influence government stockpiling policies for vaccines against potential bioterror threats?
- Will increased funding flow into research for other neglected tropical diseases?
The answers to these questions will shape the long-term business prospects for companies involved in monkeypox vaccine and treatment development.
Balancing Public Health and Profit: Ethical Considerations
The monkeypox outbreak and subsequent WHO declaration have reignited discussions about the ethics of profiting from public health emergencies. The potential for windfall profits during crises raises significant concerns.
Some public health experts advocate for alternative models, such as advanced market commitments or government-funded research and development, to ensure that critical vaccines and treatments are available at affordable prices when needed.11 Others argue that the current profit-driven model, despite its flaws, remains the most effective way to spur rapid innovation in times of crisis.
Conclusion: A Complex Ecosystem of Health and Commerce
The WHO's monkeypox emergency declaration has set in motion a complex interplay of public health imperatives and commercial opportunities. One thing is certain, vaccine manufacturers stand to benefit financially from increased demand.
References
1. World Health Organization, "WHO Director-General declares the ongoing monkeypox outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern," July 23, 2024, https://www.who.int/news/item/
2. Financial Times, "Bavarian Nordic shares surge after monkeypox emergency declaration," July 25, 2024.
3. Reuters, "SIGA Technologies stock climbs on monkeypox treatment potential," July 24, 2024.
4. European Medicines Agency, "EMA recommends approval of Imvanex for the prevention of monkeypox disease," July 22, 2024, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "ACAM2000 (Smallpox Vaccine) Questions and Answers," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-
6. Tonix Pharmaceuticals, "Tonix Pharmaceuticals Announces Positive Efficacy Data from Animal Study of TNX-801 Vaccine to Prevent Monkeypox," June 15, 2024.
7. Bavarian Nordic, "Bavarian Nordic Expands Capacity to Meet Demand for Monkeypox Vaccine," August 1, 2024.
8. World Health Organization, "WHO calls for equitable access to monkeypox vaccines," July 27, 2024.
9. Bloomberg, "Monkeypox Vaccine Maker Keeps Mum on Pricing as Demand Surges," July 29, 2024.
10. Nature, "The thorny issue of vaccine pricing," August 5, 2024.
11. The Lancet, "Rethinking pharmaceutical incentives in public health emergencies," August 10, 2024.
Fool Me Twice? PCR Testing, Covid Hysteria 2.0, and the Looming Avian Flu Pandemic
As the echoes of the COVID-19 pandemic begin to fade, a new specter looms on the horizon: avian flu. But before you rush to stockpile masks and hand sanitizer, consider this: are we about to fall victim to the same flawed testing that fueled years of coronavirus panic? With governments already funneling millions into vaccine development and talks of mass testing ramping up, it's time to ask ourselves: are we truly facing a new pandemic threat, or are we witnessing history repeat itself, driven by misinterpreted PCR tests and pharmaceutical profit motives? The answers may surprise you - and they're crucial for navigating the potential hysteria ahead.
The recent MSN article claiming a "summer covid surge" across 84 countries has reignited fears of a global pandemic resurgence.1 However, a closer examination of COVID-19 testing methods reveals critical flaws that call into question the validity of such alarming headlines. At the heart of this controversy lies the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test - a diagnostic tool whose inventor, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, warned could be easily misinterpreted to produce misleading results.
The Questionable Foundations of a "COVID Surge"
The MSN article paints a dire picture, describing a "summer covid wave" washing over the Americas, Asia and Europe. It cites World Health Organization (WHO) data indicating the virus is increasing in at least 84 countries. The piece goes on to stoke fears about the potential for more dangerous viral variants to emerge, quoting a WHO epidemiologist who states "Covid-19 is still very much with us."2
However, this narrative of surging cases rests on a shaky foundation - namely, the widespread use of PCR tests to diagnose COVID-19 infections. While PCR technology is a powerful tool for detecting genetic material, its application as a diagnostic test for infectious disease is fraught with issues that Kary Mullis himself highlighted years before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kary Mullis' Warnings: PCR's Limitations Exposed
Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing PCR, was outspoken about the technology's limitations when applied to disease diagnosis. In a 1997 meeting in California, Mullis made several prescient comments that directly relate to today's COVID testing controversy:
"Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough... It doesn't tell you that you're sick."3
Mullis explained that while PCR is incredibly sensitive, able to detect tiny fragments of genetic material, this very sensitivity makes it prone to producing misleading results:
"If they could find this virus in you at all, and with the PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else."4
He went on to caution against over-interpreting PCR results:
"PCR is just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you."5
While Mullis was specifically addressing HIV/AIDS testing in these comments, the fundamental issues he raised apply equally to COVID-19 PCR tests. His warnings highlight a critical flaw in using PCR as the primary tool for diagnosing active COVID infections and tracking case numbers.
The PCR Problem: Amplification Without Context
To understand why PCR tests are problematic for COVID diagnosis, it's crucial to grasp how the technology works. PCR amplifies genetic material exponentially, doubling the target DNA with each cycle. For COVID tests, viral RNA is first converted to DNA, then amplified.
The number of amplification cycles used - known as the cycle threshold (Ct) - is critical. The higher the Ct, the more sensitive the test, but also the greater chance of detecting non-infectious viral fragments or contamination. Most COVID PCR tests use very high Ct values of 40 or more, potentially producing positive results in people without active, infectious virus.6
Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has criticized this approach:
"We've been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus - that's all. We're using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making."7
The result is a potential inflation of "case" numbers that may not accurately reflect the number of people with active, transmissible infections. This casts doubt on the validity of reported COVID surges based primarily on PCR test results.
Koch's Postulates: The Missing Link in COVID Science
Beyond issues with PCR testing, there are fundamental scientific steps that have not been completed to prove SARS-CoV-2 is the sole causative agent of COVID-19. Koch's postulates, a set of criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease, have not been fulfilled for COVID-19.8
These postulates require:
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
- The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
While some argue Koch's postulates are outdated for viral diseases, they remain a gold standard for establishing disease causation. The fact that they have not been satisfied for SARS-CoV-2 highlights the gaps in our understanding of COVID-19's etiology.
Media Fear-Mongering in the Absence of Scientific Debate
The mainstream media's portrayal of COVID-19 surges based on PCR test results exemplifies a broader pattern of fear-mongering that has characterized much of the pandemic coverage. Open, scientific debate about test accuracy, disease transmission, and the proportionality of public health measures has been notably absent from major news outlets.
This one-sided narrative has had profound consequences. Years of lockdowns, mask mandates, and coercive vaccination campaigns were implemented based largely on PCR test data, despite the test's limitations. The suppression of dissenting scientific opinions has eroded public trust in health institutions and the media.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University, has criticized this approach:
"The idea that everyone must be vaccinated against COVID-19 is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody should. The most appropriate approach, based on fundamental public health principles, would be to vaccinate the vulnerable and offer the vaccine to others who want it."9
The Consequences of Suppressed Debate
The stifling of open scientific discussion has had far-reaching effects:
- Erosion of informed consent: Without access to balanced information, the public's ability to make informed medical decisions has been compromised.
- Loss of civil liberties: Lockdowns and mandates based on potentially flawed data have resulted in unprecedented restrictions on personal freedoms.
- Vaccine hesitancy: Heavy-handed promotion of COVID vaccines, coupled with censorship of safety concerns, has paradoxically increased public skepticism of vaccination programs.
- Mental health crisis: Constant fear-mongering by the media has contributed to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues in the general population.
- Economic damage: Policies based on PCR test results have led to business closures, job losses, and economic instability that will have long-lasting effects.
The Way Forward: Restoring Scientific Integrity and Public Trust
As we face headlines about new COVID surges, it's crucial to approach the data critically and demand more nuanced reporting. Several steps are necessary to restore scientific integrity and public trust:
- Re-evaluate PCR testing: Implement standardized Ct values and correlate results with culturable virus to better identify active infections.
- Fulfill Koch's postulates: Complete the scientific process of proving disease causation for SARS-CoV-2.
- Encourage open debate: Foster an environment where scientists can freely discuss all aspects of COVID-19 without fear of censorship or professional repercussions.
- Improve media literacy: Educate the public on how to critically evaluate scientific claims and media reports.
- Restore informed consent: Provide balanced, comprehensive information on all aspects of COVID-19, including potential risks and benefits of interventions.
Conclusion: Beyond the Headlines
The latest claims of a COVID surge across 84 countries should be viewed with healthy skepticism. The reliance on PCR tests, with their known limitations, combined with a media environment that has often prioritized sensationalism over scientific accuracy, calls for a more measured approach.
The reliance on PCR testing to identify bird flu cases raises concerns about potential false positives and overinflated case counts, similar to issues seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argue this approach could be used to stoke a new wave of public fear around avian influenza. The fact that we are seeing familiar players like Moderna receiving substantial government funding for mRNA vaccine development against bird flu, mirroring the lead-up to the coronavirus pandemic, further fuels skepticism about the motivations behind expanded testing and the push for new vaccines.10 This pattern of events calls for careful scrutiny to ensure public health measures are truly warranted and not driven by financial interests or fearmongering.
As Kary Mullis wisely cautioned, PCR is a powerful tool, but its results require careful interpretation. It's time to move beyond simplistic headlines and fear-mongering, towards a more nuanced and scientifically grounded understanding of COVID-19 and potential future threats like avian flu. Only then can we develop truly effective and proportionate public health responses that respect both individual rights and societal well-being.
References
1. Malhi, Sabrina, Lizette Ortega, and Dan Keating. "Summer Covid Surge Hits at Least 84 Countries and Continues to Climb." MSN, July 2023. https://www.msn.com/en-us/
2. World Health Organization. "Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Situation Reports." WHO, 2023. https://www.who.int/
3. Mullis, Kary. Remarks at Santa Monica biotechnology meeting, 1997. Quoted in Farber, Celia. Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS. Melville House, 2006.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Jaafar, Rita, et al. "Correlation between 3790 qPCR positives samples and positive cell cultures including 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates." Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/
7. Mandavilli, Apoorva. "Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn't Be." The New York Times, August 29, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/
8. Brock, Thomas D. Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology. ASM Press, 1999.
9. Bhattacharya, Jay. "The Covid Pandemic's Big Lie." Newsweek, July 28, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/
10. Reuters. "Bird Flu Concern Prompts U.S. to Award Moderna $176 Million for Vaccine Development." Reuters, July 11, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/
Who Funds the WHO? Unseen Power: The WHO Foundation’s Donors and the Potential Impact on Global Health
The WHO's legitimacy is under siege as the opaque practices and potential conflicts of interest within the WHO Foundation risk compromising the organization's impartiality and autonomy amidst growing corporate influence.
The World Health Organization plays a vital role in shaping global health policies and coordinating responses to public health crises. However, the organization's reliance on voluntary donations, particularly from private sector entities and philanthropic organizations, has raised alarming concerns about undue influence and conflicts of interest. The establishment of the WHO Foundation in 2020, aimed at mobilizing additional resources to support the WHO's mission, has further exacerbated these concerns. As the Foundation's practices deviate from its stated governance model, the WHO's independence and credibility are at risk, jeopardizing the trust placed in this global health authority. The incorporation of the WHO Foundation in Switzerland, a country known for its robust privacy laws, further underscores the lack of transparency surrounding the Foundation's operations. Moreover, as non-democratically elected international governmental bodies, the WHO and the WHO Foundation have the power to preempt the sovereignty of individual nations and the constitutions that protect their citizens, raising serious questions about accountability and the potential for abuse of power.
The Rise of "Dark Money" in Global Health
The influx of private funding into the WHO Foundation has brought to light the troubling influence of "dark money" in global health policy. The Foundation's donor list includes controversial multinational companies and pharmaceutical giants, whose interests may not align with the WHO's mission of promoting public health.
- Multinational companies like Nestlé have made substantial donations to the WHO Foundation, despite their non-compliance with international health guidelines.
- Pharmaceutical giants, including Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, and Merck, have contributed to the WHO, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
- Nearly 40% of the money raised by the WHO Foundation in its first two years came from anonymous sources, with $26 million out of $66 million total donations coming from undisclosed donors.
The growing influence of philanthropic foundations in global health policy is another cause for concern. While their contributions have undoubtedly supported important initiatives, their outsized influence may skew priorities and divert attention from addressing the root causes of health inequities.
- The Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, are among the top funders of the WHO, with the Gates Foundation alone contributing over $2 billion since 2000.
- Critics argue that the Gates Foundation's emphasis on technological solutions may divert attention and resources away from addressing structural determinants of health.
- The bulk of the WHO's funding comes from voluntary donations from member states, UN bodies, and private philanthropic organizations, which are often short-term and earmarked for specific projects, potentially impeding strategic planning and leading to inflexibility.
Eroding Transparency and Accountability
The WHO Foundation's lack of transparency and accountability is a grave concern, as it undermines public trust in the WHO and its ability to make unbiased decisions in the interest of global health. The Foundation's deviations from its governance model and the absence of clear conflict of interest policies leave the door open for undue influence from private interests.
1. Deviations from the WHO Foundation's Governance Model
- The Foundation's due diligence and transparency practices have been altered, making it easier to engage with industries posing reputational risks to the WHO.
- Donor anonymity has been granted, contrasting claims that it would only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
- The WHO Foundation is accepting donations in the apparent absence of an agreed conflict of interest policy or standard operating procedures regarding the suitability of donors.
- The WHO Foundation's Gift Acceptance Policy lacks transparency, hindering public scrutiny of donations.
2. The Risks of Earmarked Funding
- The WHO Foundation has been vague about how funds, including $20 million in anonymous donations, are being distributed.
- Over 50% of the Foundation's donations are earmarked by donors, potentially dictating the WHO's priorities and leading to the neglect of crucial health topics.
- Earmarked donations from corporate partners are welcomed, but it's unclear how conflicts of interest are assessed or how their impact is measured.
3. Self-Dealing and Conflicts of Interest
- Self-dealing rules generally prohibit transactions between foundations and their board members, foundation managers, and certain family members, regardless of fairness or advantage to the foundations.
- Thomas Zeltner, who was Chairman of the WHO Executive Board, is now the founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the WHO Foundation, raising concerns about self-dealing.
- Conflict-of-interest policies should cover situations where there is even an appearance of conflict to maintain objectivity, reputation, and avoid liability.
Depoliticizing Corporate Influence
The WHO Foundation's structure and operations raise concerns about the depoliticization of corporate influence in global health policy. By operating at an arm's length from the WHO, the Foundation can make decisions with less public scrutiny and political oversight, potentially allowing private interests to shape the global health agenda.
1. The Illusion of Independence
- The WHO Foundation's arms-length relationship with the WHO allows it to make decisions with less public scrutiny and political oversight.
- This setup is seen as potentially depoliticizing key WHO financing decisions, making them less visible to wider audiences.
- If the Foundation is successful in generating substantial funds, it could threaten the WHO's operational independence and create a form of regulatory chill.
- Despite emphasis on strengthening the WHO during health crises, funds often end up directed to other institutions, undermining the WHO's capacity.
2. Managing Expectations vs. Reality
- The Foundation strategically manages expectations of accountable governance to mitigate concerns, while its actual practices contradict the model used to justify its existence.
- The informal and secluded nature of the Foundation's practices allows it to drift from its governance model without facing the same public scrutiny associated with decision-making within the WHO.
- There is a lack of clarity about the applicability of the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) norms and practices to the WHO Foundation.
- The WHO Foundation's Gift Acceptance Policy does not explicitly exclude donations from controversial industries like alcohol, raising concerns about insufficient protections against industry interference.
- The promotion of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and whole-of-society approaches by the UN and unhealthy commodity industries could undermine real progress in NCD prevention by giving industry more influence over public health strategies.
The Path Forward: Strengthening the WHO's Independence
To restore public trust and ensure that the WHO can fulfill its mandate without undue influence, it is crucial to reform the WHO Foundation and strengthen the WHO's policies on accepting private sector donations. Transparency, accountability, and robust conflict of interest safeguards are essential to protect the integrity of global health decision-making.
1. Reforming the WHO Foundation
- The WHO Foundation should be scrapped, and the WHO should strengthen its policies on accepting private sector donations.
- Robust conflict of interest policies and safeguards are essential to prevent regulatory capture and ensure that the WHO's decision-making serves the global public interest.
- The WHO cannot afford to be seen sacrificing its independence or impartiality to commercial determinants of health in pursuit of funding, considering how many global health challenges are driven by powerful transnational companies.
- The WHO Foundation should publish full details of contributions from non-State actors to enhance transparency and protect against conflicting corporate interests.
- The WHO should reconsider the role given to stakeholders with significant conflicts of interest in policy deliberations and consultations to promote a greater role for civil society and people living with NCDs.
2. Sustainable and Flexible Funding
- If governments continue to provide the WHO with the sustainable, flexible funding it needs to carry out its mandate effectively, both the governments and the WHO should be fully transparent about where that money is going, and if it is truly serving the public's best interests.
- Relying on voluntary contributions from private donors leaves the organization vulnerable to undue influence and undermines its ability to respond to global health challenges in a timely and equitable manner.
- The WHO faces a funding shortfall of over $600 million for 2022-2023, with only 16% of its budget covered by member states' regular contributions.
- WHO member states failed to agree on increasing mandatory financial contributions in 2022, leading the organization to rely more on private funding sources.
3. Protecting National Sovereignty and Democratic Accountability
- The WHO and WHO Foundation, as unelected international bodies, must respect the sovereignty of individual nations and the rights of their citizens protected by national constitutions.
- Global health governance should be guided by democratic principles, ensuring that the voices of all nations, particularly low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), are heard and respected in decision-making processes.
- The power imbalance between high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs in global health governance must be addressed to prevent the prioritization of economic interests over public health.
- Global health initiatives should engage with and learn from successful public health practices implemented by LMICs, rather than imposing top-down approaches driven by HICs.
Conclusion: The influence of "dark money" on global health policy, exemplified by the WHO Foundation's conflicts of interest, poses a significant threat to the integrity and independence of the World Health Organization. As unelected global bodies with immense power, the WHO and WHO Foundation must prioritize transparency, accountability, and democratic principles to maintain public trust and protect the sovereignty of individual nations. Without clear safeguards against undue influence from private interests and a commitment to equitable global health governance, the WHO risks losing its legitimacy as a guardian of public health.
To learn more about how you can stand up for your health rights, visit Stand For Health Freedom.
References
1. Maani N, Van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M, Ralston R, Collin J. "The new WHO Foundation - global health deserves better," BMJ Global Health 6, no. 2 (2021), https://doi.org/10.
2. Zenone M, Hawkins B. "Powerful allies and weak consensus: towards a deeper understanding of how health-harming industries seek to influence global health governance: Comment on 'Competing frames in global health governance: an analysis of stakeholder influence on the political declaration on non-communicable diseases,'" International Journal of Health Policy and Management 11, no. 7 (2022): 1222-1224, https://doi.org/10.
3. Maani N, Van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M, Ralston R, Collin J. "The new WHO Foundation - global health deserves better," BMJ Global Health 6, no. 2 (2021), https://doi.org/10.
4. Ralston R, Hil SE, da Silva Gomes F, Collin J. "Towards preventing and managing conflict of interest in nutrition policy? an analysis of submissions to a consultation on a draft WHO tool," International Journal of Health Policy and Management 10, no. 5 (2021): 255-265, https://doi.org/10.
5. Lacy-Nichols J, Marten R. "Power and the commercial determinants of health: ideas for a research agenda," BMJ Global Health 6, no. 2 (2021), https://doi.org/10.
6. Collin J, Hill SE, Kandlik Eltanani M, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE. "Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research," PLoS One 12, no. 9 (2017), https://doi.org/10.
7. Grady, Christine E., and Alan E. Fuchs. "Conflicts of Interests at Foundations - Avoiding the Bad and Managing the Good." USA: Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers, and Council of Michigan Foundations, 2005. https://www.
8. Maani N, Van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M, Ralston R, Collin J. "The new WHO Foundation - global health deserves better," BMJ Global Health 6, no. 2 (2021), https://doi.org/10.
9. Grady, Christine E., and Alan E. Fuchs. "Conflicts of Interests at Foundations - Avoiding the Bad and Managing the Good." USA: Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers, and Council of Michigan Foundations, 2005. https://www.
10. Patnaik P. "Following the money II: After the WHO, the World Bank gets a bashing," Geneva Health Files, April 30, 2021, https://
11. Rinaldi C. "Public-private partnerships with unhealthy commodity industries: are they undermining real progress in non-communicable disease prevention?: Comment on 'Competing frames in global health governance: an analysis of stakeholder influence on the political declaration on non-communicable diseases,'" International Journal of Health Policy and Management 11, no. 7 (2022): 1212-1214, https://doi.org/10.
12. Ralston R, Hil SE, da Silva Gomes F, Collin J. "Towards preventing and managing conflict of interest in nutrition policy? an analysis of submissions to a consultation on a draft WHO tool," International Journal of Health Policy and Management 10, no. 5 (2021): 255-265, https://doi.org/10.
13. Carriedo A, Lauber K, Miller MM, Ralston R. "Lacking clarity or strategic ambiguity? Comment on 'Competing frames in global health governance: an analysis of stakeholder influence on the political declaration on non-communicable diseases,'" International Journal of Health Policy and Management 11, no. 7 (2022): 1215-1218, https://doi.org/10.
14. Rinaldi C. "Public-private partnerships with unhealthy commodity industries: are they undermining real progress in non-communicable disease prevention?: Comment on 'Competing frames in global health governance: an analysis of stakeholder influence on the political declaration on non-communicable diseases,'" International Journal of Health Policy and Management 11, no. 7 (2022): 1212-1214, https://doi.org/10.
15. Maani N, Van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M, Ralston R, Collin J. "The new WHO Foundation - global health deserves better," BMJ Global Health 6, no. 2 (2021), https://doi.org/10.
16. Zenone M, Hawkins B. "Powerful allies and weak consensus: towards a deeper understanding of how health-harming industries seek to influence global health governance: Comment on 'Competing frames in global health governance: an analysis of stakeholder influence on the political declaration on non-communicable diseases,'" International Journal of Health Policy and Management 11, no. 7 (2022): 1222-1224, https://doi.org/10.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario