Who's funding WHO?

Unresolved COVID Controversies: 'Normal science' and potential non-scientific influences

ABSTRACTThe COVID-19 health crisis has so far involved enormous consequences in human pain, suffering and death. While biomedical science responded early, its response has been marked by several controversies between what appeared to be mainstream perspectives, and diverse alternative views; far from leading to productive debate, controversies often preceded polarisation and, allegedly, exclusion and even censorship of alternative views, followed by the pretense of scientific consensus. This paper describes and discusses the main controversies in the production of COVID biomedical knowledge and derived control measures, to establish if alternative positions are also legitimate from a 'normal science' perspective (rather than comparing them for superiority); explores potential non-scientific explanations of the alleged exclusion of certain views; and analyzes ethical issues implied. The operation of non-scientific factors in scientific and regulatory processes (e.g. various forms of subtle corruption) has been documented in the past; the intervention of such influences in the mishandling of controversies (i.e. on early management, non-pharmacological prevention and vaccination) cannot be ruled out and deserves further investigation. Some of these controversies, increasingly visible in the public domain, also involve ethical challenges that need urgent attention. Polarisation, censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be left behind.

The Successes and Failures of Global Health Organizations: The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, Médicins sans Frontières and PEPFAR

Chapter 7 examined the operations of multilateral, bilateral and private donors in financing the fight against HIV/AIDS. This chapter examines the operations of five organizations that focus more directly on addressing HIV/AIDS health issues on the ground: the World Health Organization; UNAIDS; Médicins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders); the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The first two form part of the United Nations (UN) system, the third is a private, non-profit non-governmental organization that relies on volunteers to deliver medical services and products in developing countries that are facing health crises and the fourth and fifth are a US government program and agency, respectively. The UN has won the Nobel Peace Prize a number of times: UN Middle East mediator (1950); UNHCR, the UN refugee agency (1954); UN Secretary-General (1961); UNICEF (1965); ILO, the UN labor agency (1969); UNHCR, the UN refugee agency (1981); UN peacekeeping (1988); and UN Secretary-General and the UN, jointly (2001). There are several bodies inside the UN that also have won the Nobel Peace Prize, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (2005) and Director Mohamed El-Baradei and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). In addition, the prime minister of Canada, Lester Bowles Pearson, won Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the UN (1957). Médicins sans Frontières has won the Nobel Peace Prize once (1999)

Should patient groups accept money from drug companies? Yes

Patient groups provide valuable support and advocacy for vulnerable people but funding the work can be difficult. Alastair Kent argues that not accepting industry money will unnecessarily limit the groups' effectiveness, but Barbara Mintzes believes that the money undermines their independence