fbpx

who

Global Consumer Group Calls for Defunding WHO, Praises Trump’s Probe

Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group, is launching a campaign to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) and is praising President Donald Trump for his remarks at Tuesday’s coronavirus press briefing when he said he would be looking into the massive funding the United States gives to WHO annually.

Trump at the press briefing criticized how WHO had not been transparent about the coronavirus and its genesis and evolution in China.

“They called it wrong … we’re gonna put a hold on money spent to the WHO,” Trump said. “We’re going to put a very powerful hold on it.”

“It’s a good thing when it works, but when they call every shot wrong, that’s no good,” Trump said.

“President Trump’s decision speaks to the larger inefficiencies and issues of transparency and accountability that have plagued the World Health Organization in recent years,” Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, said in a statement he distributed to the press.

“While the failures of the WHO have only recently gotten publicity, this has been a long time coming,” Ossowski said.

Ossowski outlined some of those inefficiencies in his statement.

“It has been revealed that the WHO spends up to $200 million per year, or $28,500 per staffer, on travel costs alone, more than the budgets of combatting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined,” Ossowski said. “Not to mention they’ve been known to host extravagant galas and conferences that do not further global public health.”

“We witnessed this during the Ebola epidemic in western Africa in 2013-14, where the WHO was too slow to respond and inadequate in health policies, and we’re seeing it in realtime with COVID-19,” Ossowski said.

“The WHO and its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus have cozied up to the Chinese Communist Party since the beginning of the outbreak and praised their failures,” Ossowski said. “Even as late as January 19th, the WHO parroted the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative that human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus was very unlikely.”

“Now is the time to send a clear signal that the WHO needs to be transparent and accountable for their failures,” Ossowski said.

“In 2017, Consumer Choice Center led the efforts in calling on the United States and member nations to cut funding to the WHO to realign their priorities toward health emergencies such as the very real pandemic we currently face,” Ossowski said. “The WHO has failed in its principal mission and it needs to be defunded. We applaud President Trump for his bold move.”

According to the World Health Organization, the United States as a “member state” has an assessed contribution owed to the organization for 2020-2021 of $115,766,922.

The United States is the largest donor to the World Health Organization of all countries that are member states.

“We’re going to make a determination about what we’re doing,” Trump said at the daily coronavirus press briefing on Wednesday at the White House.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Everything Wrong with Cancer Warning Labels

Everything Wrong with Cancer Warning Labels

“BACON…, HOT COFFEE…, RED MEAT…, COCONUT OIL…
WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON?

You’ve may have thought: THEY’RE DELICIOUS. 
WRONG.

According to the World Health Organization’s INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC), all these foods “PROBABLY” or “POSSIBLY” can give you cancer.

Each year, this France-based agency published new studies known as monographs claiming to establish what is carcinogenic. So far, they’ve listed over 500 substances as DEFINITELY or POTENTIALLY carcinogenic, including your morning cup of coffee and the herbicide you use in your garden. In 48 years, they’ve only found one – JUST ONE – that isn’t.

These declarations have a sweeping impact not only on the products on the shelves, and how they’re regulated and taxed, but also the billions of dollars of lawsuits against these products.

CAN YOU SAY PAYDAY?

This is where science is trumped by money and lawyers.

IARC willfully confuses the relationship between “hazard” and “risk”. Hazard is something that can cause harm, risk explains how likely it is that it will. The sun is a hazard, because exposure to it can cause skin conditions. However, to most people the sun is not a risk, because they limit their exposure in summer, or apply sun cream. As with EVERYTHING ELSE, it’s a question of dosage.

For example, in 2016 the Munich Environmental Institute cast doubt on the safety of beer, claiming it can cause cancer. What they left out was that you needed to drink 1000L of beer a day for it to actually be harmful to health. Arguably, after 1000L of beer, the fact that it might be carcinogenic will be the least of your problems.

IARC STUDIES ARE LIKE A BAT SIGNAL TO THOUSANDS OF TORT LAWYER FIRMS.

What these experts conclude, therefore, becomes scientific dogma, regardless of the science.

WHY IS THIS PROBLEMATIC?

Experts at IARC have often been caught colluding with lawyers who stand to benefit from future lawsuits.

In the case of BENZENE and GLYPHOSATE, they have been accused of manipulating the science to arm trial lawyers. Researches have been ringing the alarm on IARC’s corruption of science for years.

That means hundreds of bogus lawsuits, bad public policy and bad information for consumers.

WHO BENEFITS WHEN SCIENCE IS CORRUPTED? 

LET’S UPHOLD SCIENCE RATHER THAN POLITICS. BECAUSE WE DESERVE BETTER


FOR MORE ARTICLES AND PUBLICATIONS ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH, CLICK HERE.

The case for defunding the WHO

COMMENT CENTRAL: Bill Wirtz believes there is no need for taxpayers to be continuously patronised by WHO health experts. It’s time to defund the WHO.

USA gegen WHO-Zuckersteuern

NOVO ARGUMENTE: Die Trump-Regierung blockiert innerhalb der Weltgesundheitsorganisation die Forderung nach einer Zuckersteuer. Gut so, denn eine solche Steuer ist paternalistisch und gegen die Armen gerichtet.

WHO calls for total industrial trans fat ban by 2023

OIL AND FOODS: The World Health Organization (WHO) is calling for a global ban on industrially produced trans fats by 2023, in its latest move to combat cardiovascular disease.

Il est temps d’abolir l’OMS

LA CHRONIQUE AGORA: Les dérives de cette organisation dispendieuse et idéologique sont nombreuses et des organismes non gouvernementaux opèrent plus efficacement dans le domaine de la santé. Alors que la crise Ebola ravageait des pays africains en 2014, nous faisions confiance  à un certain nombre d’organisations internationales pour aider les pays d’Afrique occidentale tels que le […]

KDO POTŘEBUJE WHO?

FINMAG: Světová zdravotnická organizace to je plýtvání penězi poplatníků. A její priority jsou úplně neuvěřitelně pokřivené.

WHO wants to ban trans fats – that’s just one reason they should be defunded

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Ebola recently killed 19 people in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization is focused on their war against trans fats.

რა დგას თამბაქოს კონტროლის კანონის უკან?

TABULA: 2018 წლიდან თამბაქოს კონტროლის შესახებ კანონში ცვლილებები შევიდა. ცვლილებების თანახმად, გამკაცრდა თამბაქოს მოწევისა და რეალიზაციის არეალი, თამბაქოს კონტროლის სფეროს მარეგულირებელი კანონქვემდებარე ნორმატიული აქტები, თამბაქოს ექსპორტი და იმპორტი. კანონში ასევე აღნიშნულია, რომ ცვლილებები ემსახურება „თამბაქოს კონტროლის შესახებ“ ჯანმრთელობის მსოფლიო ორგანიზაციის ჩარჩო კონვენციის ამოცანებისა და პრინციპების შესრულებას.“.

Brauchen wir die WHO noch?

DIE WELT: In der Debatte über die Notwendigkeit bestimmter internationaler Organisationen sollten wir nicht deklarierte Absichten, sondern ihre Resultate betrachten. Wenn man sich die Arbeit der WHO anschaut, wird eines klar: Ihre Notwendigkeit ist strittig.

Scroll to top
en_USEN