Should Madagascar and the poor countries leave WHO?
This is a question that many poor and developing countries are beginning to ask themselves, faced with the bankruptcy of the WHO on the Covid-19 in all areas.
As the battle against covid-19 moves to the south, the question arises of the very usefulness of an organization like WHO. It has failed in almost all areas, still two trains behind when it must be on the front line. She’s the one to strike first, but there she stays in the back, watching the different countries, fighting for themselves. She always arrives at the end to greet the victory or to say sadly “that we still have to make efforts”.
The US decision to leave WHO is not linked to its incompetence, but to the showdown with the Chinese. Considering that China co-opted the WHO, wrongly, Trump and his henchmen want to attack international institutions on all fronts. The motives are completely different, because Trump mainly wants to seduce his electorate and the rest is of little interest to him. In May 2020, there were rumors that Madagascar was considering leaving the WHO. Nothing like this has happened, but let’s say that Madagascar did not appreciate the contempt of WHO towards CVO, the anti-covid-19 treatment made in Madagascar.
The treatment has had some success. It is moderate when the epidemic reaches its maximum, but it seems effective to intervene upstream. When the country launched the CVO, WHO advised against treatment as well as the Madagascan Academy of Sciences. I have already explained (in french), but the launch of the CVO is more a political thought rather than a purely medical approach. What is certain is that the Covid-19 literally destroyed Western science.
We have seen a science totally corrupt, protecting its interests by not hesitating to lie, to fabricate false scientific studies and to glorify the ass of neoliberalism by all means. Madagascar has criticized the WHO that it would have been different if the CVO had been invented by a white man in a wealthy country. It’s more complex than skin color. Because the WHO also despised chloroquine (it even abandoned it today), but it continues to sing loudly the merits of Remdesivir which is too expensive for 99.99% of humanity.
We saw a WHO change its mind every morning. Even China is angry with the organization, it accuses it of not having warned the other countries quickly enough about the epidemic, when it had sounded the general alert from mid January 2020. But it is above all the lobbies behind, who must encourage poor countries like Madagascar, consider leaving WHO, or at all, distance themselves from them to launch their own initiatives.
WHO’s funding is based on its member countries with a split between a compulsory and voluntary contribution. It is the voluntary contribution that constitutes the majority of WHO’s funding of $ 5.48 billion for the 2018/2019 period. Among the four largest contributors are the United States, England, the Gates Foundation and the Gavi alliance (the latter giving vaccines to poor countries). You also have organizations like the Rotary Club, the European Commission and Germany. These 7 contributors represent almost 50% of total WHO funding. And contrary to popular belief, China has minority funding, ranging from 90 to $ 100 million.
In fact, in total, China contributes only 0.22% on the budget of the WHO, which, you will admit, is absolutely not enough to influence the WHO. And the main contributors are Europeanists, Atlanticists and supporters of frenzied neoliberalism. Germany alone gives three times as much money as China and we know that Germany is the seat of the biggest pharmacological companies.
Criticism against foundations like Gates should not be on the level of conspiracy, but on the side of neoliberalism. When you have a nurse with his syringe, then you can be sure that the soldier will follow with his rifle. Over the years, private organizations in the United States have fully controlled and influenced WHO in one way or another. In terms of generics drugs, for example, WHO has been reluctant for years to comment on bioequivalence. The result is that the organization has continued to promote exorbitant treatment for the majority of poor countries.
Countries like Madagascar have the natural resources to offer effective treatments against many diseases. The traditional Malagasy pharmacopoeia is sufficiently rich. No doubt it needs to be improved a bit, but for all these years, the only place you could buy it was on market stalls next to chicken and tomatoes. How do you want her to earn her stripes? And there comes the Covid-19 and the government is trying to revitalize the sector with the CVO.
And in the process, the WHO and several organizations influenced by a rotten Western science, criticized the drug. However, WHO has changed his mind and even supports clinical trials of CVO. A malagasy professor has even been integrated into Afro/WHO which is an initiative aimed at promoting traditional medicine in Africa. But we realize that the first reflex of the WHO is to destroy any alternative, which can counteract pharmacological companies. She only reverses her decision when it is forced. The example of chloroquine is striking. If WHO had openly supported the drug, millions of lives could have been saved.
In his letter on the Covid-19, Bill Gates felt that only the big pharamacological companies can save us from the covid-19, but that they will not do it for free. According to his terms, they must “de-risk” their investments with government funds. This is abject neoliberal language. Governments give billions to Big Pharma, it creates and sells the drugs at exorbitant prices, and then they can say they have saved the world. So the taxpayers finance Big Pharma and then buy them back 1000 times more expensive. A funny definition for a benefactor of humanity.
Like Madagascar, many African countries have launched their own anti-covid-19 remedies. But they have to go further. Any alternative will be destroyed by WHO, or rather those who fund it. Rich countries don’t need WHO, they have the funds to set up their own agencies. WHO, on the other hand, acts as a proxy for these types of agencies for poor countries that cannot afford to set them up. As a result, they are very dependent on the funds of the organization. However, poor countries will have to choose between a traditional low-cost pharmacopoeia and one that has been entirely designed for rich countries.
Leaving WHO will be very difficult at first, but poor countries must take advantage of Covid-19 to think about taking a step back. Create small independent structures to have a certain health autonomy otherwise they will never leave their appellation of poor countries.