Panel 1 - IHR and Pandemic Treaty - an introduction by Dorota Rodziewicz

WHO is an institution with a huge conflict of interest. It is infiltrated by pharmaceutical companies and global foundations, and funded by donations from corporations and NGOs that influence WHO policy, making it favorable to them. WHO works for the benefit of so-called “important stakeholders”, marginalizing the needs of ordinary people. Efforts to improve health are ignored in favor of activities designed to profit sponsors, including pharmaceutical companies. The organization is dominated by bureaucrats and technocrats, rather than by competent health professionals who are dedicated to caring for patients and helping them maintain and improve their health. It is overly dependent on the pharmaceutical, medical and hospital complex, which practices medicine designed to mask symptoms rather than actually improve health.
Influenced by vaccine manufacturers and promoters, the WHO has lost sight of its primary goal of promoting health, and has placed undue emphasis on the use of vaccines that have not improved but have actually worsened the overall health of billions of people around the world.
Decisions, advice or recommendations made by the WHO can have a colossal impact on profits for pharmaceutical companies, by creating lucrative markets for their health products in developing countries.
Completing the WHO picture is the figure of its head, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a far-left politician, who was part of the brutal regime in Ethiopia, accused by human rights organizations of systematic torture, disappearances and repression of the media and civil society. Tedros was a member of the EPRDF, a coalition of leftist parties that ruled Ethiopia until 2019, when the coalition changed its name to the Prosperity Party. His candidacy was pushed by Communist China, and supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The World Health Organization's budget for 2020-2021 was $7.5 billion. The budget for 2024-2025 is already $11.1 billion.
WHO has not always had such a strong political position and stable financial situation. In 1950, WHO's budget came solely from member contributions. Within a few decades, this funding stream was exhausted. In response to the politicization of UN agencies, such WHO, major donors introduced a policy of zero real growth in UN agency budgets in 1980 and zero nominal growth in 1993. In the 1990s, the organization was plagued by scandal after scandal. Deprived of public funding, WHO began to rely heavily on voluntary donations from donor countries, but mainly from private philanthropists, companies and NGOs. Unlike funds from contributions, individual donors can allocate “off-budget” funds for any purpose. In 1970, these private contributions accounted for a quarter of the agency's budget. By 2008, they accounted for nearly 80 percent. Today they account for more than 85 percent of the WHO budget. It seems reasonable to ask whether WHO continues to shape the global health agenda, or whether its sponsors do so. According to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press, the UN health agency routinely spends about $200 million a year on travel expenses, an amount higher than WHO spends on tackling its biggest public health problems, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined.