By Irene F. Starkehaus -
Another American missionary doctor working in Liberia has tested positive for Ebola. In Sierra Leone, infected bodies of Ebola victims are reportedly piling up in the streets making it difficult for local health workers to contain the spread of this disease. The World Health Organization has just confirmed that the newly-identified cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the Democratic Republic of Congo are not the same genetic strain currently circulating in Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria and warns that the world is losing the battle against the fledgling Ebola epidemic. As you know, it's a virus and viruses adapt… better than the WHO does as a matter of fact.
Depending on the news source, there have been either 200 deaths from Ebola annually since the early '70s or this number has been grossly underreported and could reach over 12,000 this year. So it follows that the WHO not only struggles to contain this deadly pathogen, it also struggles with basic reporting best practices.
With all this in mind, the World Health Organization finds itself in the middle of its annual pandemic hysteria drive, and like good little lambs, we react to the mania because we have no real information and a whole lot of fear mongering in the media to fuel the great fund-raising appeal for the greater good of world health. The growing prominence of the WHO in the battle against everything from Ebola to HIV to the flu to polio coupled with slapdash results should have Americans asking ourselves, "Who exactly is the WHO and how did this agency become so central to our perception of illness and disease?"
The World Health Organization came into being in 1949. The main responsibility was to help anybody in need of medical assistance. How's that for a mission statement?
The WHO along with the World Bank constitute the core team responsible for administering the International Health Partnership (IHP+). As of 2012, the largest annual assessed contributions from member states (this doesn't include private donations) came from the United States ($110 million), Japan ($58 million), Germany ($37 million), United Kingdom ($31 million) and France ($31 million). The combined 2012–2013 budget proposed a total expenditure of nearly $4 billion dollars. Quoting heavily from Wikipedia (see above link for more information):
They are credited for ridding the world of small pox which ended the need for the vaccination of our children against this brutal disease (although vials of the deadly contagion were discovered earlier this year in a broom closet in Washington DC, so I guess the term "ridding" should be used loosely in this case.) Since the 1940s, they have been working to eradicate tuberculosis.
Additionally, the WHO restricts itself to thirteen areas in the improvement of world health:
The WHO seeks to reduce the "health, social and economic burden" of communicable diseases in general in cooperation with the World Bank.
They combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in particular. (The WHO gave up on eradicating malaria in the 1970s because they viewed controlling mosquito populations as too ambitious.) (Starting in August of 2014, news outlets began reporting of the rise in HIV infections.) (Ditto for tuberculosis, although it has been determined that seals and sea lions and not Christopher Columbus brought the dreaded disease to the shores of this once pristine paradise…so at least European-Americans can breathe a sigh of relief on that point.)
They eradicate polio (in spite of a half century of effort to eliminate polio, the WHO announced in early 2014 that the spread of polio is a world health emergency – outbreaks of the disease in Asia, Africa and the Middle East are considered extraordinary.)
They prevent and reduce disease, disability and premature death from chronic non-communicable diseases, mental disorders, violence and injuries, and visual impairment.
They reduce morbidity and mortality and improve health during key stages of life, including pregnancy, childbirth, the neonatal period, childhood and adolescence, and improve sexual and reproductive health and promote active and healthy aging for all individuals. (They also promote the use of contraception and abortion in response to overpopulation concerns…the job of controlling mosquito populations is overly ambitious, but humans are easier.)
They prevent or reduce risk factors for health conditions associated with use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other psychoactive substances, unhealthy diets and physical inactivity and unsafe sex. (Ironic since tobacco apparently plays a role in stopping Ebola. Keep your eye on that term "unhealthy diets" because that's the WHO's ticket into the American healthcare system.)
When any sort of disaster or emergency occurs, it is WHO's stated objective to reduce any consequences that the event may have on world health and its social and economic implications.
The WHO works to improve nutrition, food safety and food security and to ensure this has a positive effect on public health and sustainable development.
The WHO addresses government health policy with two aims: firstly, "to address the underlying social and economic determinants of health through policies and programs that enhance health equity and integrate pro-poor, gender-responsive, and human rights-based approaches" and secondly "to promote a healthier environment, intensify primary prevention and influence public policies in all sectors so as to address the root causes of environmental threats to health. (Again, note that term health equity…anytime you read the word equity, feel free to replace it with the term "redistribution".)
There's more, but this is the gist of their raison d'être.
I wanted to share this broad-spectrum information about the World Health Organization's own detailed mission statement not because I enjoy exhausting readers with droning Wikipedic minutiae but because it highlights the very real problem of handing over sovereignty to unelected, unchecked, bureaucratic megaliths. The World Health Organization answers to nobody. Increasingly, the citizens and governments of the United States answer to the WHO. This is important information on which we can reflect because the WHO is just one agency that works together with a web of other agencies within the UN in promoting an agenda that is frequently at odds with our own national interests.
The WHO with its budget of billions has not been able to contain the Ebola outbreak in Africa even though it's the self-proclaimed obligation of this prestigious agency. They are now calling for independent health organizations to assist in heading off the crisis. So on top of the billions of dollars that they control within their own budgets, they now can count on nations and agencies to offer up their own budgets to do the work that they have appointed themselves to do.
In the meantime, the US and Canadian cooperative efforts that developed ZMapp as a possible treatment look to be successful in curtailing Ebola symptoms. Two American caregivers that contracted the disease have been released from American hospitals with the assurance that they are free of the effects of Ebola… this naturally feeds the perception of America's so-called gluttonous privilege which can now be used to underscore the WHO's issue with regard to health inequity.
There's more than that to consider.
Food shortages in the infected regions are inhibiting efforts to contain the spread of Ebola into new areas of Africa. The WHO is now warning of imminent famine in the region.
And this brings us back to…?
Inequity. The US has an abundance of food available to its citizens. More than we can consume. And Americans are regarded by the brilliant international community as fat, slovenly people who might cut caloric intake if we were more cosmopolitan and world-focused. From the Tufts University Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy:
"Food waste presents a major challenge to conserving resources and securing nutritional needs for future generations. It had been calculated that 19 percent of the available, edible food supply in the U.S. is wasted by consumers, costing the average American household $936 a year. This uneaten food also wastes environmental resources."
Per the study, it is therefore incumbent on the government to educate families on the nutritional content of their meals within their resource constraints while now educating consumers about lowering the amount of food waste…Per Reuters, Tufts University (by the way) received a cool million in grants from ChildObesity180 which is part of First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move! Active Schools."
And please note the mention of our environmental impact with regard to food waste in the Tufts University study as POTUS works with the United Nations to compel climate change regulations without Congress's approval.
On and on we go. I could play the connections game all day long and never run out of new material. The point isn't to feed conspiracy debates on which governing body is most likely to thwart your individual right to self-determination. They'll all try. It's the nature of the governing beast to limit your rights for its own survival. The point here is that when we send precious funding and resources up the governing food chain, control becomes less accountable and less concerned about how its lack of accountability impacts your life. More importantly, it limits competition and overwhelmingly impacts study results as the piper manipulates his tune to be most pleasing to his underwriter's ears.
The existence of mega-agencies such as the WHO virtually guarantee that science will be skewed and accountability will be non-existent.
"The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against an all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization and against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better." ~ Friedrich Hayek