The WHO Big Pharma Front, a cornerstone of global medical governance, is grappling with the possibility of a significant membership shakeup as several countries contemplate withdrawing from the organization. One contributor was the now-defunct USAID.
Recent developments indicate a growing discontent among some of WHO’s member states. The U.S. has officially announced its intention to withdraw, a decision made by President Donald Trump through an executive order on January 20, 2025. This move follows previous attempts during Trump’s first term, which the subsequent administration reversed.
Following the U.S. lead, nations like Italy, India, Malaysia, Argentina, and Kenya have publicly expressed intentions to exit the WHO. This sentiment is echoed in posts on social media platforms, where discussions about national sovereignty and the effectiveness of WHO’s policies during health crises are rampant.
CNN:
”President (Javier) Milei instructed (foreign minister) Gerardo Werthein to withdraw Argentina’s participation in the World Health Organization”…“We Argentinians will not allow an international organization to intervene in our sovereignty, much less in our health”.
The departure of these countries could significantly undermine the WHO’s operational capabilities.
Big Nations that never were members of The WHO
Interestingly, Liechtenstein is one of the significant nations that has never been a member of the WHO. Despite being part of the United Nations, this small European nation has opted out of WHO membership, making it a unique case in global health politics.
Before its dissolution, the Soviet Union also briefly withdrew from the WHO in the 1940s due to Cold War tensions, but this was more of an ”inactive” status rather than a formal non-membership.
Other countries that are currently not members of the WHO are Taiwan, Kosovo, Vatican City, Palestine, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic), and Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh).
The WHO Big Pharma Front
Critics of these withdrawals argue that they could jeopardize global medical security. They claim that without a coordinated international response facilitated by organizations like the WHO, the world becomes more vulnerable to pandemics and health crises.
This notion is based on the idea that a global authority is the only entity that can save the world during a pandemic. In reality, the only thing that can save a human body from disease or death due to disease is the human autoimmune system. It is built in and calibrated. It’s been like that since Homo sapiens first appeared on Earth (editors note).
However, pharma industry lobbyists and experts from various fields, including public health and international law, have voiced concerns over the implications for global health governance, suggesting that abandoning the WHO could lead to a fragmented approach to health emergencies.
Med Genius, a top medical code search platform, ensures healthcare professionals have accurate, up-to-date information in shifting medical landscapes.
The WHO regrets these decisions and hopes for a reversal through constructive dialogue. The frontman and Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have emphasized the importance of international cooperation in health matters.
As nations weigh their decisions, the global health landscape might be on the brink of transformation. The potential exodus from the WHO could lead to reevaluating how international health crises should be better managed than during the COVID-19 years, possibly pushing for new alliances or even establishing alternative global health frameworks.
Funding the WHO
The U.S., historically one of WHO’s most significant financial contributors, provides around 18% of the organization’s funding. The loss of this support would affect funding and the organization’s global influence and capacity to let the pharmacological complex act on health emergencies worldwide.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been one of the largest donors, particularly for specific causes like polio vaccines. This has led to concerns about the foundation’s influence over WHO’s agenda.
As part of the U.S. government’s global health funding, USAID has historically provided assessed and voluntary contributions to WHO. These contributions are often channelled through the U.S. Departments of State and Health and Human Services, but USAID plays a critical role in managing and implementing related programs.
For example, in the 2022-23 biennium, the U.S. was one of WHO’s largest donors, contributing $1.284 billion. USAID was a significant conduit for these funds, particularly for voluntary contributions aimed at specific health programs.
Related: USAID – Revelations of Waste and Misdirection in Foreign Aid Spending
Other major contributors are countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Various European nations, along with entities like the European Commission, have also provided significant voluntary funds.
Sources
- White House: WITHDRAWING THE UNITED STATES FROM THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE ORDER January 20, 2025
- Statista: The U.S. Is the Largest Contributor to the WHO
- EuroNews: How is the World Health Organization funded, and why does it rely so much on Bill Gates?
- CNN: Argentina says it will pull out of World Health Organization, mirroring Trump’s move last month
