U.S. President Donald Trump is no friend to Canada, and his tariff threats are a menacing shadow as we approach his Feb. 1 deadline. Yet, while the president seems intent on shattering the foundations of the world’s most symbiotic trade relationship, causing both economic and political turmoil in Canada, some of his policies are worth looking at, particularly his departure from the World Health Organization (WHO).

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the WHO, pointing a spotlight on the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with its broader failures in global health crises, its refusal to undergo necessary reforms and its evident allegiance to the political inclinations of its member states.

And for anyone who thought he was bluffing, he doubled down by ordering the U.S. Centres for Disease Control to stop working with the WHO altogether.

Canada, with its reflexive opposition to anything Trump does — often for good reasons — should take a moment to consider that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If Canada were to withdraw its hefty contribution to the WHO, $204 million in 2022-23, it might well be closing time for this broken and mismanaged institution.

Trump, in his bombastic fashion, is right when he accuses the WHO of botching its response to COVID-19. From the outset, the WHO has failed in its primary duties. It was late in declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and its own review of the response was nothing short of a condemnation.

In the early stages, WHO officials tweeted that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. The tweet, which is hilariously still online, was posted on the same day that the WHO’s technical lead on COVID gave a presentation in Geneva saying the exact opposite.

Why would the WHO tweet something its own staff disagreed with? Because it was placating China. The now infamous tweet was posted to provide “balance” based on the data coming from the Chinese Communist Party.

The problem is that the Chinese government already knew about human-to-human transmission, and delayed communicating that fact for another six days. The consequences of the WHO bending to the will of an authoritarian regime cannot be understated.

The WHO’s missteps are undeniably attributable to its suspicious relationship with China. The organization’s allegiance to China became embarrassingly clear when WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ senior advisor, Canadian epidemiologist Bruce Aylward, hung up during an interview rather than discuss Taiwan — a moment that spoke volumes about WHO’s integrity, or lack thereof.

While these tragic mistakes put the organization’s credibility in the crosshairs, it then flip-flopped on key health policies like the utility of masks, the value of travel bans and testing protocols.

In early 2020, the WHO suggested masks should only be worn by health-care workers and those experiencing symptoms. Come June, it flipped, recommending fabric masks for all, leading to confusing, politically charged mask policies around the world.

Anyone who flew during this time remembers the farce of requiring masks on the plane, only to have everyone remove them to eat, rendering the whole exercise useless. Or the miserable experience of entering a restaurant with a mask on, taking it off to eat, but being told to put it back on while heading to the washroom.

The COVID-19 fiasco should have been a wake-up call for the WHO’s reform, yet no such overhaul seems likely. Instead, the WHO marches on with its prohibitionist, anti-scientific stance on matters like alcohol and vaping.

On vaping, the WHO has advocated for draconian restrictions, ignoring the evidence from Public Health England that vaping is 95 per cent less harmfulthan smoking and aids in smoking cessation. Such policies, as Yale University research has shown, ironically serve to increase smoking rates — a contradiction of the WHO’s own mission.

And on alcohol, the WHO has peddled the myth that there’s “no safe” amount, a position that flies in the face of research from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, whose research found that moderate drinkers live longer than non-drinkers. Similar findings have been detailed innumerous peer-reviewed studies for decades.

Why does the WHO push bad science when good science is available? That’s unclear, but it may have to do with the fact that the researchers the WHO relies on for its work on alcohol have openly declared ties to neo-prohibitionist groups like Movendi.

The WHO’s narrative seems more influenced by neo-prohibitionist agendas than by science, and that should worry anyone who cares about public health. Not to mention that the organization, even prior to the pandemic, was spending upwards of $200 million per year on travel, which is about what we as Canadian taxpayers spend to fund this bloated monstrosity.

Instead of aligning with this compromised organization, Canada might consider spearheading a NATO-like health alliance with democratic nations, focusing on genuine public health, free from the puppet strings of authoritarian regimes like China’s. It’s high time we acknowledge that the WHO has become more a part of the problem than the solution.

Originally published here

New York’s former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his obsession with paternalistic policies such as banning Big Gulps, or even just the arrogant statement that sin taxes’ regressive effect on poor people is good because they lack the proper education, has continued being active in the world of public health through Bloomberg Philanthropies. 

The charity arm of Bloomberg, to which he has pledged the majority of his wealth, estimated at over $50 billion, is highly political.

A reasonable assumption would be that a foundation focused on improving public health would support research into curing cancer, investigating rare diseases and orphan drugs, or alleviating the pain and suffering of American patients. After all, if the ambition of giving back to the country in which he amassed his billions were to be the goal, that would appear to be a laudable action.

However, Bloomberg has just continued his nonsensical political battles in the nonprofit world and expanded all around the world. Its latest obsession: (misguided) tobacco control in Vietnam.

In late November, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam passed a law that would ban nicotine alternatives such as vapes and heated tobacco products. Together with the World Health Organization (WHO), Bloomberg Philanthropies “supported” — most likely meaning financially — efforts to ban safer nicotine products. 

Curiously, conventional cigarettes, with all the adverse health effects we have all known about for many decades, remain both legal and sold by Vietnam’s own billion-dollar state-owned tobacco monopoly, Vinataba. With its 12,000+ employees and $8 billion in revenue, which is about 12% of Vietnam’s yearly tax revenue, the Vietnam National Tobacco Company is a not-so-insignificant money collector for the state. 

So, while Bloomberg and the WHO sell this as a victory for public health, officials in Hanoi are more likely to view it as a means of neutralizing competition in its monopoly.

The question is: While the Vietnamese state might have something to gain from a financial decision veiled as a public health boost, why does Bloomberg support a measure that drives people away from devices that help people quit smoking and bring them back to conventional cigarettes?

We need not look for any particular conspiracy here; it’s not money that the New York billionaire needs more of. His charitable foundation is nothing but the elongated arm of his paternalistic and ideological obsession.

Whether it’s sugar, fat, or nicotine, the public health brigade stops at nothing to regulate choices they deem unhealthy.

But at least for sugar and fat, there’s a case to be made that they aren’t healthy choices to begin with. The public utility of a Big Gulp is that as a consumer, I want to have it, not that I need it, and yes, in a free society, that needs to be enough of a reason to keep it. 

Sugar, like any other product, can be consumed in moderation. However, the substitution effect of nicotine alternatives like vapes and heaters goes beyond that because they help people quit harmful cigarettes. E-cigarettes are around 95% less harmfulthan conventional cigarettes, according to Public Health England, and thus serve a public health objective instead of worsening it.

The problem is that while in developed countries, there are institutions and think tanks able to counterbalance the influence of Bloomberg’s vast array of ideological lobbying for the Nanny State, developing nations are much less equipped to do so in the absence of sufficient public debate. This makes them easy targets for the former New York mayor.

As Michelle Minton lays out in a blog post, the American nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), which is funded by Bloomberg, is actively drafting legislation of lobbying for similar types of restrictions on nicotine alternatives in the Philippines, Ukraine, Bosnia, Latin American countries, as well as Africa.

Countries face differing challenges in reducing their smoking rates, which is why they all pursue different policies. Having an American billionaire steamrolling their sometimes legitimate efforts to improve public health with an ideological approach that will backfire, is not just counterproductive, it might very well be the most unhealthy approach of all.

Originally published here

Diabetes currently affects nearly half a billion people worldwide, and that number is projected to increase dramatically with each generation. According to research from the American Diabetes Association and the CDC, by 2060, over 220,000 young people in the U.S. under age 20 are expected to have Type 2 diabetes, marking a roughly 700 percent increase from recent years. This growth highlights the urgency of addressing one of the most significant challenges facing modern healthcare. The economic impact is staggering, with the condition costing the U.S. $412 billion annually and accounting for about 10 percent of global healthcare spending. In the U.S., one in every four healthcare dollars is spent on treating people with diabetes.

The rising prevalence of diabetes has spurred a race for innovative and affordable solutions to manage weight and combat obesity, with Novo Nordisk leading the way. The company, known for its development of Ozempic and Wegovy, is challenging the usual skepticism surrounding pharmaceutical giants. While insulin manufacturers have often faced criticism for high prices and supply issues, recent progress in diabetes care is shifting the narrative, particularly through the development of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1), such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro/Zepbound.

These GLP-1 agonists represent a groundbreaking advancement in diabetes and obesity treatment. Unlike traditional weight loss methods, these medications mimic naturally occurring hormones that regulate appetite, leading to enhanced feelings of fullness and satiety. As a result, people taking these drugs often consume less food and may even experience changes in food preferences, showing reduced cravings for salty, high-fat, sweet, and savory foods. This shift helps make healthier eating habits more attainable for patients, promoting sustainable weight loss.

The benefits of GLP-1 agonists go well beyond weight loss. Research has shown that these medications can significantly reduce the risk of serious conditions such as stroke and heart disease. The FDA recently approved Wegovy for treating severe cardiovascular issues, underscoring the drug’s potential to improve heart health. Furthermore, some studies suggest that GLP-1 agonists may play a role in mitigating cognitive decline, possibly helping to prevent conditions like dementia and Parkinson’s disease. The drugs are also reported to curb addictive behaviors, including alcohol use and gambling, providing a range of therapeutic benefits.

While the current cost of GLP-1 agonists remains high, averaging $12,000 annually per patient in the U.S., growing competition is expected to drive prices down, making these life-changing treatments more accessible. In the long term, the widespread adoption of these medications could help reduce healthcare costs by improving overall population health and decreasing the need for expensive diabetes-related treatments. Lower healthcare spending, even by a few percentage points of GDP, would mark a significant shift toward a healthier, more economically sustainable society.

The potential impact extends beyond healthcare. For instance, companies like United Airlines could see substantial cost savings—around $80 million annually on fuel—if the average passenger’s body weight decreased by just five kilograms. The broader economic benefits further underscore the positive ripple effects of embracing innovative treatments for diabetes and obesity.

Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly are also challenging the longstanding criticism that pharmaceutical companies profit from managing chronic illness rather than curing it. The industry’s recent efforts to develop drugs that not only manage diabetes but also improve overall health represent a significant step forward in addressing complex, widespread conditions. These developments signal a shift toward prioritizing patient outcomes and reflect a broader commitment to transforming the healthcare landscape.

As GLP-1 agonists continue to gain recognition for their versatility and effectiveness, they offer hope for millions of people struggling with diabetes and obesity. This wave of innovation could pave the way for a healthier future, potentially curbing the diabetes epidemic and easing the economic burden it imposes on society.

Originally published here