Who Is Driving the Pandemic Express?

September 9, 2022 Updated: September 12, 2022

Commentary

Skeptics of the growing “pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response” (PPR) agenda celebrated recently, heralding a perceived “defeat” of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) controversial amendments to the International Health Regulations. Although the proposed amendments would have undoubtedly expanded the WHO’s powers, this focus on the WHO reflects a narrow view of global health and the pandemic industry.

The WHO is almost a bit player in a much larger game of public-private partnerships and financial incentives that are driving the pandemic gravy train forward.

While the WHO works in the spotlight, the pandemic industry has been growing for more than a decade, and its expansion accelerates unabated. Other major players such as the World Bank, the coalitions of wealthy nations at the G-7 and G-20, and their corporate partners work in a world less subject to transparency—a world where the rules are more relaxed, and a conflict of interest receives less scrutiny.

If the global health community is to preserve public health, it must urgently understand the wider process that’s underway and take action to stop it. The pandemic express must be halted by the weight of evidence and basic principles of public health.

Funding a Global Pandemic Bureaucracy

“The FIF [Financial Intermediary Fund] could be a cornerstone in the construction of a truly global PPR system in the context of the International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, sponsored by the World Health Assembly.” (WHO, April 19, 2022)

The world is being told to fear pandemics. Ballooning socioeconomic costs of the COVID-19 crisis are touted as justification for increased focus on PPR funding. Calls for “urgent” collective action to avert the “next” pandemic are predicated on systemic “weaknesses” supposedly exposed by COVID-19.

As the WHO steamed ahead with its push for a new pandemic “treaty” in 2021, G-20 members agreed to establish a Joint Finance and Health Task Force (JFHTF) to “enhance the collaboration and global cooperation on issues relating to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

A World Bank–WHO report (pdf) prepared for the G-20 joint task force estimates that $31.1 billion will be required annually for future PPR, including $10.5 billion per year in new international financing to support perceived funding gaps in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Surveillance-related activities comprise almost half of this, with $4.1 billion in new funding required to address perceived gaps in the system.

In public health terms, the funding proposed to expand the global PPR infrastructure is enormous. By contrast, the WHO’s approved biennium program budget for 2022–2023 averages $3.4 billion per year. The Global Fund, the main international funder of malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS—which have a combined annual mortality of more than 2.5 million—currently dispenses just $4 billion annually for the three diseases combined. Unlike COVID-19, these diseases cause significant mortality in lower-income countries and in younger age groups, year in and year out.

In April 2022, the G-20 agreed to establish a new “financial intermediary fund” (FIF) housed at the World Bank, to address the $10.5 billion PPR financing gap. The FIF is intended to build upon existing pandemic funding to “strengthen health systems and PPR capacities in low-income and middle-income countries and regions.” The WHO is predicted to be the technical lead, landing them with an assured role, irrespective of the outcome of current “treaty” discussions.

The establishment of the fund has proceeded with breathtaking speed, and it was approved on June 30 by the World Bank’s board of executive directors. A short period of consultation precedes an expected launch in September. To date, donations totaling $1.3 billion have been pledged by governments, the European Commission, and various private and nongovernmental interests, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust.

The initial areas for the fund are somewhat all-encompassing, including country-level “disease surveillance; laboratory systems; emergency communication, coordination and management; critical health workforce capacities; and community engagement.”

In scope, the fund has the appearance of a new “World Health Organization” for pandemics—to add to the existing (and ever-expanding) network of global health organizations such as the WHO, Gavi, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the Global Fund.

But is this increased expenditure on PPR justified? Are the escalating socioeconomic costs of COVID-19 due to a failure to act by the global health community, as is widely claimed; or are they due to negligent acts of failure by the WHO and global governments, when they discarded previous evidenced-based pandemic guidelines?

COVID-19: Failure to Act or Acts of Failure?

In the debate surrounding the growing pandemic industry, much attention is being directed toward the central role of the WHO. This attention is understandable given the WHO’s position as the agency responsible for global public health and its push for a new international pandemic agreement. However, the WHO’s handling of the response to COVID-19 creates serious doubts about the competency of its leadership and raises questions about whose needs the organization is serving.

The WHO’s failure to follow its own preexisting pandemic guidelines (pdf) by supporting lockdowns, mass-testing, border closures, and the multibillion-dollar COVAX mass-vaccination program, has generated vast revenue for vaccine manufacturers and the biotech industry, whose corporations and investors are major contributors to the WHO. This approach has crippled economies, damaged existing health programs, and further entrenched poverty in low-income countries.

Decades of progress in children’s health are likely to be undone, together with the destruction of the long-term prospects of tens of millions of children, through loss of education, forced child marriage, and malnutrition.

In abandoning its principles of equality and community-driven (pdf) health care, the WHO appears to have become a mere pawn in the PPR game, beholden to those with the real power—the entities who are providing its income and who control the resources now being directed to this area.

Corporatizing Global Public Health

Recently established health agencies devoted to vaccination and pandemics, such as Gavi and CEPI, appear to have been highly influential from the beginning. CEPI is the brainchild of Bill Gates, Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust), and others at the pro-lockdown World Economic Forum. Launched at Davos, Switzerland, in 2017, CEPI was created to help drive the market for epidemic vaccines. It’s no secret that Gates has major private financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, in addition to those of his foundation. This clearly places a question mark over the philanthropic nature of his investments.

CEPI appears to be a forerunner of what the WHO is increasingly becoming—an instrument where individuals and corporations can exert influence and improve returns by hijacking key areas of public health. CEPI’s business model (pdf), which involves taxpayers taking most of the financial risk for vaccine research and development, while Big Pharma gets all the profits, is notably replicated in the World Bank–WHO report.

Gavi, itself a significant WHO donor that exists solely to increase access to vaccination, is also under the direct influence of Gates via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Gavi’s involvement (alongside CEPI) with the WHO’s COVAX program, which diverted vast resources into COVID-19 mass vaccination in countries where COVID-19 was a relatively small disease burden, suggests the organization is tied more strongly to vaccine sales than to genuine public health outcomes.

Pandemic Funding—Ignoring the Big Picture?

At first glance, increased PPR funding to LMICs may seem a public good. The World Bank–WHO report claims that “the frequency and impact of pandemic-prone pathogens are increasing.” However, this is belied by reality, as the WHO lists only five “pandemics” in the past 120 years, with the highest mortality occurring in the 1918–1919 H1N1 (“Spanish”) influenza pandemic, before antibiotics and modern medicine. Apart from COVID-19, the “swine flu” outbreak in 2009–2010, which killed (pdf) fewer people than a normal flu year, is the only “pandemic” in the past 50 years.

Such a myopic focus on pandemic risk will do little to address the most serious causes of illness and death, and it can be expected to make matters worse for people experiencing the most extreme forms of socioeconomic disadvantage. Governments of low-income countries will be “incentivized” (pdf) to divert resources to PPR-related programs, further increasing the growing debt crisis.

A more centralized, top-down public health system will lack the flexibility to meet local and regional needs. Transferring support from higher burden diseases, and drivers of economic growth, has a direct impact on mortality in these countries, particularly for children.

The World Bank–WHO report states that the pillars of the global PPR architecture must be built on the “foundational principles of equity, inclusion and solidarity.” As severe pandemics occur less than once per generation, increased spending on PPR in LMICs clearly violates these basic principles, as it diverts scarce resources away from areas of regional need, to address the perceived health priorities of wealthier populations.

As demonstrated by the damage caused by the COVID-19 response, in both high- and low-income countries, the overall harm of resource diversion from areas of greater need is likely to be universal. In failing to address such “opportunity costs,” recommendations by the WHO, the World Bank, and other PPR partners can’t be validly based in public health; nor are they a basis for overall societal benefit.

One thing is certain: Those who will gain from this expanding pandemic gravy train will be those who gained from the response to COVID-19.

The Pandemic Gravy Train—Following the Money

The new World Bank fund risks compounding existing problems in the global public health system and further compromising the WHO’s autonomy; although it’s stated that the WHO will have a central “strategic role,” funds will be channeled through the World Bank. In essence, it financially sidesteps the accountability measures at the WHO, where questions of relative worth can be raised more easily.

The proposed structure of the FIF will pave the way for organizations with strong ties to pharmaceutical and other biotech industries, such as CEPI and Gavi, to gain even greater influence over global PPR, particularly if they are appointed “implementing entities”—the operational arms that will carry out the FIF’s work program at the country, regional, and global levels.

Although the initial implementing entities for the FIF will be U.N. agencies, multilateral development banks, and the IMF, plans are already underway to accredit these other international health entities. Investments are likely to be heavily skewed toward biotechnological solutions, such as disease surveillance and vaccine development, at the cost of other, more pressing, public health interventions.

Protecting Public Health Rather Than Private Wealth

If the world truly wants to address the systemic weakness exposed by COVID-19, it must first understand that this pandemic gravy train isn’t new: The foundations for the destruction of community- and country-based global public health began long before COVID-19.

It’s unarguable that COVID-19 has proved to be a lucrative cash cow for vaccine manufacturers and the biotech industry. The public-private partnership model that now dominates global health enabled vast resources to be channeled into the pockets of corporate giants, through programs they directly influence, or even run.

CEPI’s “100 Days Mission” to make “safe and effective” vaccines against “viral threats” within 100 days—to “give the world a fighting chance of containing a future outbreak before it spreads to become a global pandemic”—is a permit for pharmaceutical companies to appropriate public money on an unprecedented scale, based on their own assessments of risk.

The self-fulfillment of the “increasing frequency of pandemic” prophecy will be ensured by the push for increased disease surveillance—a priority area for the FIF. To quote the World Bank–WHO report:

“COVID-19 highlighted the need [to] connect surveillance and alert systems into a regional and global network to detect zoonotic transmission events, raise the alarm early to enable a swift public health response, and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures.”

Like many claims being made about COVID-19, this claim has no evidence base—the origins of COVID-19 remain highly controversial, and the WHO’s data demonstrate that pandemics are uncommon, whatever their origin. None of the “countermeasures” have been shown to significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19, which is now globally endemic.

Increased surveillance will naturally identify more “potentially dangerous pathogens,” as variants of viruses arise constantly in nature. Consequently, the world faces a never-ending game of seek and ye shall find, with never-ending profits for industry. Formerly once per generation, this industry will make “pandemics” a routine part of life, where rapid-fire vaccines are mandated for every new disease or variant that arrives.

Ultimately, this new pandemic fund will help to hook low- and middle-income countries into the growing global pandemic bureaucracy. Greater centralization of public health will do little to address the genuine health needs of people in these countries.

If the pandemic gravy train is allowed to keep growing, the poor will get poorer, and people will die in increasing numbers from more prevalent, preventable diseases. The rich will continue to profit, while fueling the main driver of ill health in lower-income countries—poverty.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

David Bell
David Bell, senior scholar at the Brownstone Institute, is a U.S.-based public health physician. After working in internal medicine and public health in Australia and the UK, he worked in the World Health Organization as program head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics in Geneva, and as director of global health technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, Wash. He consults on biotech and global health.
Emma McArthur is an independent researcher investigating pandemic preparedness and the response to COVID-19. She is a former social worker with experience in the fields of mental health, homelessness, and counselling for survivors of institutional childhood sexual abuse. She holds a master's degree in social work and a BSc in radiography.