High Tide of the WHO?


US President Donald Trump has said he is going to halt funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) because it has “failed in its basic duty” in its response to the coronavirus outbreak.

He accused the UN agency of mismanaging and covering up the spread of the virus after it emerged in China, and said it must be held accountable.

Might this mark the beginning of the end of supranational global organisations like the WHO, which seem to have been steadily growing in power and influence for 50+ years?

They’re not democratically accountable, and seem to have been captured by multiple special interest groups of one kind or other. And of course the War on Tobacco is run from outfits like the WHO.

It’s surely a big thing when the US government turns on the WHO?


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to High Tide of the WHO?

  1. smokingscot says:

    It’s more than just the American President. Tanzania booted out the WHO people when their samples of goat meat, sheep meat and a paw paw tested positive for Covid. Burundi hoofed their lot because of their demands for social distancing.


    However neither country matters as much as the USA, who are the largest contributor by a big margin to the WHO.


    Looking at their chart, I can’t see why the Americans should contribute such a large amount relative to the others. I know $116 million isn’t a lot against some of their other commitments (they send $3.8 billion to Israel just for military aid).

    Trump does have several valid reasons to take issue with the WHO, but anything he does will be reversed when he leaves office (hopefully not for another 4.7 years). Can this result in wholesale reform? Nope, not a hope, it suits far too many to keep it exactly as it is; a compliant entity that’s beholden to Gates, Bloomberg, Ted Turner and quite probably Soros.

  2. Frank Davis says:


    THE health establishment was looking away when the coronavirus struck; it had other priorities. If you look at the World Health Organisation’s list of health threats, number one is climate change. Pandemics were down in third place, behind ‘non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes and obesity.

    Wherever you look, you will find some of the biggest names in the public health establishment declaiming on the risks of climate change to world health. On the eve of the outbreak, the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene declared that we would be seeing ‘mass migration, emerging infectious diseases such as dengue and a shortage of food’. As the first people fell ill in Wuhan, the WHO announced that in ten years we would be seeing 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress as a result of global warming.

  3. peter soakel says:

    Great to see you back Frank. I hope the new normal excludes corrupt supranational entities as people wake up to the scamdemic when they realise they are skint and jobless and quite possibly homeless.

  4. Dmitry says:

    We are following the same track, Frank. A minute ago I finished reading a very careful and balanced opinion about the need to launch a review of the WHO, maybe not quite the one that Trump is offering. Have a look:
    My pet idea is that there must be someone who says clearly: we need to look at the source of a crazy idea to lock down whole nations and thus cause total ruination and future loss of life. What was the machinery that made even the strongest leaders accept that madness? Was it the WHO, or was it the same machinery that used the WHO as a tool to scare and bully people about smoking? So, there has to be at least a start to such investigation.

  5. Clicky says:

  6. Clicky says:

  7. Lepercolonist says:

    Smokers have less contact with the general population. We no longer go to bars, restaurants,sporting events, pool halls, bowling alleys, trains, airplanes, etc. The WHO can not blame the smokers this time ? Well, maybe Bloomberg blames smokers.

  8. Rose says:

    It’s all a bit academic now our body belongs to the state.

    Wednesday’s Organ Seizure Act
    22nd May 2020

    “On Wednesday the Organ Donation Act came into force: “force” (the government’s words, not ours). This means that, based on a consultation of 17,000 individuals, the government has chosen to nationalise the organs of its citizens rather than gain their explicit consent.

    The nationalisation is clear. On death, the person, after consulting with family, will be presumed to have consented to have their organs harvested:

    Firstly, the body should not become state or communal property on death. There are strong bodies of common law guidance, along with the cultural practice, in relation to the disposal of the body. The government stepping in and assuming the body is their’s for the taking because the individual concerned did not check a box is a frightening reach of government power.

    Secondly, the consultation of the family does not mean that the family may do with the body as they please. Tacit consent is cited here for funeral arrangements, and often there is a great deal of preparation beforehand including with wills and powers of attorney, but this should not happen with the harvesting of organs. Again, the government cannot simply step in here and take what is not theirs.”

    “Fourthly, the naming of the Act is wrong. This is not organ donation but organ seizure. A donation requires active consent, this quite simply is not. One must be confronted with the choice rather than have it decided in absentia. The use of this spin and misuse of wording is all the more sinister.

    A lot of this revolves around Nudge Theory (Thaler and Sunstein) and resolving policy problems through the manipulation of choice architecture. However, this is not the manipulation of choice architecture but the manipulation of the legal status of one’s self-ownership.”

    “No sane individual would baulk at seeing less people on waiting lists and more people living happy, fruitful lives. Yet, the method of getting here must be ethically sound. Hence, the government should not cut corners and fully consult the Behavioural Insights Team on how to fulfil their policies without infringing on the consent of those they govern.

    We hope the government reforms this law to remove this legal, social, and philosophical problem before it creates a lasting change with our relations of the state for the worse.”

    First job when the surgeries open, I was born a free woman and I intend to stay that way.

    • smokingscot says:

      Equally sinister is if a person choses to end their life, say by going to Dignitas, then anyone who helps them get there, even just to the airport, then they can be held guilty of some contrived crime.

  9. Rose says:

    Why has Japan fared so much better than Britain?
    22 May 2020

    “Two populous island nations, both advanced economies situated off the coasts of major continental land masses, might be expected to have shared similar experiences during the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the UK and Japan have had completely different outcomes. Whereas this country has the highest death toll in Europe and one of the highest per capita in the world, Japan by contrast has been remarkably unscathed.

    Tokyo – with a population greater than London or New York – did not record any increase in overall deaths in March, though virus infections did not peak until April.
    Tokyo – with a population greater than London or New York – did not record any increase in overall deaths in March, though virus infections did not peak until April. If excess mortality is the benchmark for how well countries have handled the pandemic, Japan may have a good story to tell, with the fewest confirmed cases and deaths of any Group of Seven leading democracy….”

    And here is a possible answer, the Japanese ban is not a total smoking ban like our government inflicted on us.

    Japan Introduces Ban on Indoor Smoking
    April 1 2020

    “Tokyo, April 1 (Jiji Press)–A law banning indoor smoking in principle fully took effect in Japan on Wednesday as the country is racing to protect people from passive smoking going into the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games.

    The revised health promotion law bans smoking at restaurants, hotels and offices, with offenders facing penalties. The law partially went into effect last year, banning smoking at schools, hospitals and government offices.

    Cigar bars, private homes and hotel rooms are exempt from the ban.

    In addition, customers can smoke at existing small restaurants run by individuals on condition that they have a capital of 50 million yen or less and a floor space of 100 square meters or less and put a sign at their entrance that smoking is allowed.

    The revised law also allows smoking at restaurants only in designated rooms with exhaust equipment meeting certain requirements.”

    It should be possible to work out how many people our governments have left helpless against coronavirus by protecting them from secondhand smoke.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.