---- - - - --- - - -- --- -- - -
This report commissioned by the WHO D-G suggests setting up a new international "health threats council"* to be run by politicians, not doctors.
The council will operate under the auspices of a political declaration, rather than a medical declaration. It requires 'more funding and more power'.
Until now, WHO hasn't appeared overly concerned about funding because it has been handsomely financed by the UK, US and Gates Foundation (and other smaller member states).
The Gates Foundation apparently somehow managed to get itself 'recognised' as a 'state' by WHO (rather than a private entity) which allowed it to seat its unelected representatives alongside governmental reps at the WHO round table.
(According to a WHO whistle-blower,some EU doctors got rather irritated by the Gates employees who flew in for meetings).
This funding appears to have worked well for WHO until now. Perhaps something has changed? The Gates divorce may signal that less money will be incoming from the Gates duo? If this is the case, new billionaire philanthropists need to be requisitioned?
"Collective action" is no doubt good in most circumstances but lessons need to be learned from the Covid19 collective which failed to check price gouging and the withholding of product and license from developing countries. Is there also a danger that "collective action" - driven by politicians under a 'global political declaration' - risks one-size-fits-all "solutions", swayed by the politicians with the biggest financial clout and status?
If this new global health council is still dominated by the biggest powers and by private corporate funders, will the voices of politicians, doctors, scientists from outside this sphere (eg global south) be even less audible than before?
A televised discussion among doctors from the south (South America and Africa) showed them complaining that their small, medium and large-sized randomised controlled trials (RCTs), conducted with excellence, are sometimes rejected by WHO which is in favour of very large RCT's. The problem is that it is only the big pharmaceutical companies that can afford the expense and logistics of very large RCT's.
It was suggested that this attitude from WHO has resulted in some doctors accusing it of bias towards big corporate pharmacutical companies - and saying that it sometimes unfairly discounts thousands of doctors' local and in-situ trials?
These doctors point out that doctors take an Hippocratic Oath, while pharmaceutical company employees do not.
*[Would Gaza be classified a "health threat" right now, with its unvaccinated and restless natives?]