by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:
The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation doesn’t address the underlying issues with the international public health agenda, David Bell writes.
WHO has become a tool of state and non-state interests, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies having significant influence over its activities. However, the US’ withdrawal is unlikely to greatly affect the pandemic agenda’s momentum.
“The covid-19 outbreak, and the response, would have looked almost identical if the WHO did not exist … remove the WHO and the World Bank (the main funder of the pandemic agenda), the PPPs looking to sell pandemic vaccines (GAVI and CEPI), the Gates Foundation, Germany, the UK, the EU, the US health ‘swamp’ itself and Pharma with its compliance media will still exist. They have other options to bring a veneer of legitimacy to their pillaging through public health,” Bell says.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
By David Bell as published by Brownstone Institute
On Day One of his new administration, United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order notifying an intent to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (“WHO”). This has drawn celebration from some, dismay from others, and probably disinterest from the vast majority of the population, who are more concerned with feeding families and paying off debt. The executive order also leaves much unaddressed, namely the substantive issues that have changed the WHO and international public health over the past decade.
Change is certainly needed, and it is good that the WHO’s largest direct funder is expressing real concern. The reactions to the notice of withdrawal also demonstrate the vast gulf between reality and the positions of those on both sides of the WHO debate.
The new administration is raising an opportunity for rational debate. If this can be grasped, there is still a chance that the WHO, or an organisation more fit for purpose, could provide broad benefit to the world’s peoples. But the problems underlying the international public health agenda must first be acknowledged for this to become possible.
Table of Contents
What Actually Is the WHO? What Does It Do?
Despite being the health arm of the United Nations (“UN”), the WHO is a self-governing body under the 194 countries of the World Health Assembly (“WHA”). Its 34-member executive board is elected from the WHA. The WHA also elects the Director-General (“DG”), based on one country – one vote. Its 1946 constitution restricts its governance to States (rather than private individuals and corporations), so in this way, it is unique among the major international health agencies. While private individuals and corporations can buy influence, they can be completely excluded should the WHA so wish.
With 8,000 staff, the WHO is split into six Regions and a Head Office in Geneva, Switzerland. The Regional Office of the Americas, also called the Pan-American Health Organisation (“PAHO”), is based in Washington, D.C., and preceded the WHO, having been established in 1902 as the International Sanitary Bureau. Like other Regional Offices, PAHO has its own Regional Assembly, obviously dominated by the US, and is largely self-governing under the wider WHO and UN system.
The WHO is funded by countries and non-State entities. While countries are required to provide “assessed” or core funding, most of the budget is derived from voluntary funding provided by countries and private or corporate donors. Nearly all voluntary funding is “specified,” comprising 75% of the total budget. Under specified funding, the WHO must do the funders’ bidding. Most of its activities are therefore specified by its funders, not the WHO itself, with a quarter of this being private people and corporations with strong Pharma interests.
Therefore, the WHO, while governed by countries, has effectively become a tool of others – both State and non-State interests. The US is the largest direct funder (~15%), but the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”) is a close second (14%), and the partly Gates-funded GAVI public-private partnership (“PPP”) is third. Thus, Mr. Gates arguably has the largest influence in terms of specifying the WHO’s actual activities. The European Union and World Bank are also major funders, as is Germany and the United Kingdom (i.e. the remaining large Western Pharma countries).
In response to its funders, the WHO has shifted focus to areas where large Pharma profits can be accrued. Pharma must insist on this as it has a fiduciary responsibility to maximise return on investment for its shareholders by using its WHO connections to sell more product. The obvious way to make lots of money in Pharma is by spreading fear of vaccine-preventable diseases, and then making vaccines and selling them free from liability to as large a market as possible. This was highly effective during the covid-19 response, and the WHO is now sponsored by these interests to implement the surveil-lockdown-mass vaccinate paradigm behind the recent amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”) and the draft pandemic agreement.
While a shamefully willing tool, the WHO is not driving this. The US started the IHR amendment process and heavily backed it until the recent change of administration. The new administration, while signalling an intent to withdraw from the WHO, has not signalled a withdrawal from the pandemic industrial complex the US helped develop.
Critical to understanding the US withdrawal is the fact that the covid-19 outbreak, and the response, would have looked almost identical if the WHO did not exist. The WHO was not involved in the gain-of-function research, in vaccine development or in vaccine mandates. It abrogated its own ethical principles and prior recommendations in pushing lockdowns and mass vaccination and did huge harm in the process. However, it was countries that funded and conducted the virus modification that likely spawned covid-19. It was countries, in concert with Pharma, that mandated lockdowns on their people and pushed vaccination most heavily (the WHO never recommended the covid-19 vaccines for children).
