US President Donald Trump is angry with WHO. Me too. We are all angry with WHO for some reason. But Trump's reasons do not make much sense. Here is his charge sheet. First, that WHO is a bloated bureaucracy that needs urgent reform. Second, that the US Government pays too much to the agency compared with other member states. Third, that WHO covered up the origins of COVID-19. Finally, that WHO mismanaged the COVID-19 pandemic. I am told that Trump might have remained a member state on three conditions: that the current WHO Director-General (DG), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, resigned; that his successor was an American; and that China increased its contributions to the agency. These conditions were ludicrously impossible to deliver. But the US Government has not turned its back on WHO entirely. At last week's Executive Board meeting in Geneva, the US sent a delegation, and their representatives spoke in several debates. WHO is still sharing information—eg, on health emergencies—with the US. At some deep level, US diplomats know that WHO plays too important a part in monitoring disease, supporting countries, and convening experts to risk completely cutting off ties.
Reports Search
In the face of the budgetary and political crisis following the USA withdrawal from WHO, the 156th WHO Executive Board today remained strong on its core constitutional purpose to help governments protect the health of all citizens and recommended forwarding a Draft Resolution on Regulating the digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes.
More here
DAVOS – With populations ageing and mental health disorders at a record high, halting the global “pandemic” of brain disorders needs to be a paramount concern of industry – as well as the global health community.
What is needed is a global effort spawning a “healthy brain economy” for the future, reflecting the same sense of commitment and investments as those displayed in preventing childhood diseases.
That was a key message of George Vrandenburg, founder of the Davos Alzheimer’s Collaborative, on the closing day of a three-day ‘’Brain House’’ series of panels and seminars at the World Economic Forum, the first such event ever to be mounted during the WEF.
Read more here
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services just defunded and debarred the EcoHealth Alliance for five years. EHA presents itself as a key leader in the One Health approach to characterizing and intervening into infectious disease dangers. The debarment stemmed from EHA's ill-supervised coronavirus gain-of-function studies in China.
I had written about these gain-of-function projects since mid-2020 and on EHA's misappropriation of the concept of One Health since 2016.
The epistemological-political conflict has since moved to the global stage. Scientists around the world have been recruited to One Health under the EHA and other Global North banners. Others have come to reject the concept as the latest in colonial medicine.
I wrote this dispatch upon the request of organizers of a Fiocruz Rio de Janeiro series on the "Structural Crisis of Capital, Climate Emergency and Social Determination of Health".
THE need for the expansion of markets and materials under hyper-capitalism has seen a renewed interest in oceans and their exploitation. The push for ocean market expansion is also happening hand in glove with the securitisation of ocean governance. Global powers including developed countries and transnational corporations, backed up by multilateral financial institutions, are all competing to obtain and secure access to a new frontier of maritime resources.
Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network International
Debates over the scope, terms, and governance of technology transfer–the sharing of essential technical information, know-how, and materials needed to manufacture a health product–are prominent and controversial in international health diplomacy. These debates have become focal points in recent contentious negotiations to amend the international Health Regulations (IHR) and draft a global Pandemic Agreement. While some countries advocate for automatic or compulsory mechanisms to facilitate access to health technologies, especially in times of crisis, others oppose legal frameworks that mandate non-voluntary participation by the pharmaceutical industry. Also at stake are questions of institutional mandate: the United States has amplified calls by industry that pandemic technology transfer
This statement was delivered by Medicines Law & Policy at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), Session 12 (resumed), 4 December 2024
Thank you, co-chairs. We focus our remarks on issues related to technology transfer. Timely access to technology and relevant know-how is essential to pandemic preparedness and response and equitable access to pandemic products.
Voluntary agreements to achieve this, on mutually agreed terms, were always possible. The reality of Covid-19 however has shown that the will to share IP, technology and know-how by rights holders is very limited. Therefore additional action by governments is necessary and this needs to be reflected in the Agreement.
In this context, a clear statement – known as the peace clause – that parties will not exert any direct or indirect pressure on countries that useTRIPS flexibilities is essential should be included in Article 11.4.
Read more here
Countries have failed to reach a landmark agreement on tackling plastic pollution after more than two years of negotiations.
More than 200 nations met in South Korea for what was meant to be a final round of talks.
But deep divisions remained between a group of nearly 100 "high ambition" countries calling for plastic to be phased out and oil-producing nations who warned this would affect the world's development.
"The objective of this treaty is to end plastic pollution not plastic itself, plastic has brought immense benefit to societies worldwide," said the Kuwait negotiators in the final hours.
Now read more here
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Our comments relate to Article 11, and specifically the definition of technology transfer which should be improved. We refer to our statement from Monday, and emphasise that meaningful technology transfer provisions are essential to what this agreement is meant to achieve. Access to know-how is a critical part of technology transfer, and references to it should remain in the final text.
It might be advisable to use an existing definition of technology transfer as the basis for the new footnote 1(j) under Article 11.
Read more here