From the Brownstone Institute

By David Bell, Ramesh Thakur  

If we were designing a new WHO now, no sane model would base its funding and direction primarily on the interests and advice of those who profit from illness. Rather, these would be based on accurate estimates of localized risks of the big killer diseases. The WHO was once independent of private interests, mostly core-funded, and able to set rational priorities. That WHO is gone.

The WHO was originally intended primarily to transfer capacity to struggling states emerging from colonialism and address their higher burdens of disease but lower administrative and financial capabilities. This prioritized fundamentals like sanitation, good nutrition, and competent health services that had brought long life to people in wealthier countries. Its focus now is more on stocking shelves with manufactured commodities. Its budget, staffing, and remit expand as actual country need and infectious disease mortality decline over the years.

While major gaps in underlying health equality remain, and were recently exacerbated by the WHO’s Covid-19 policies, the world is a very different place from 1948 when it was formed. Rather than acknowledging progress, however, we are told we are simply in an ‘inter-pandemic period,’ and the WHO and its partners should be given ever more responsibility and resources to save us from the next hypothetical outbreak (like Disease-X). Increasingly dependent on ‘specified’ funding from national and private interests heavily invested in profitable biotech fixes rather than the underlying drivers of good health,  the WHO looks more and more like other public-private partnerships that channel taxpayer money to the priorities of private industry.

Pandemics happen, but a proven natural one of major impact on life expectancy has not happened since pre-antibiotic era Spanish flu over a hundred years ago. We all understand that better nutrition, sewers, potable water, living conditions, antibiotics, and modern medicines protect us, yet we are told to be ever more fearful of the next outbreak. Covid happened, but it overwhelmingly affected the elderly in Europe and the Americas. Moreover, it looks, as the US government now makes clear, almost certainly a laboratory mistake by the very pandemic industry that is promoting the WHO’s new approach.

Collaborating on health internationally remains popular, as it should be in a heavily interdependent world. It also makes sense to prepare for severe rare events – most of us buy insurance. But we don’t exaggerate flood risk in order to expand the flood insurance industry, as anything we spend is money taken from our other needs.

Public health is no different. If we were designing a new WHO now, no sane model would base its funding and direction primarily on the interests and advice of those who profit from illness. Rather, these would be based on accurate estimates of localized risks of the big killer diseases. The WHO was once independent of private interests, mostly core-funded, and able to set rational priorities. That WHO is gone.

Over the past 80 years, the world has also changed. It makes no sense now to base thousands of health staff in one of the world’s most expensive (and healthiest!) cities, and it makes no sense in a technologically advancing world to keep centralizing control there. The WHO was structured in a time when most mail still went by steamship. It stands increasingly as an anomaly to its mission and to the world in which it works. Would a network of regional bodies tied to their local context not be more responsive and effective than a distant, disconnected, and centralized bureaucracy of thousands?

Amidst the broader turmoil roiling the post-1945 international liberal order, the recent US notice of withdrawal from the WHO presents a unique opportunity to rethink the type of international health institution the world needs, how that should operate, where, for what purpose, and for how long.

What should be the use-by date of an international institution? In the WHO’s case, either health is getting better as countries build capacity and it should be downsizing. Or health is getting worse, in which case the model has failed and we need something more fit for purpose.

The Trump administration’s actions are an opportunity to rebase international health cooperation on widely recognized standards of ethics and human rights. Countries and populations should be back in control, and those seeking profit from illness should have no role in decision-making. The WHO, at nearly 80 years old, comes from a bygone era, and is increasingly estranged from its world. We can do better. Fundamental change in the way we manage international health cooperation will be painful but ultimately healthy.

Authors

David Bell

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. David is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

Ramesh Thakur

Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Health Secretary RFK Jr. released a new report Thursday blaming diet, chemicals, inactivity, and overmedication for chronic illnesses now impacting 40% of U.S. children.

Key Details:

• The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report identified four primary culprits: ultra-processed diets, environmental chemicals, sedentary lifestyles, and overreliance on pharmaceuticals.

• The commission called for renewed scrutiny of vaccine safety, arguing there has been “limited scientific inquiry” into links between immunizations and chronic illness.

• President Trump called the findings “alarming” and pledged to take on entrenched interests: “We will not be silenced or intimidated by corporate lobbyists or special interests.”

"Our children's bodies are being besieged," says @SecKennedy on the new MAHA Report.

"These root cause factors are at the foundation of what's driving the chronic disease crisis — but until today, the government didn't speak about them." pic.twitter.com/dhF9wEUJGg

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 22, 2025

Diving Deeper:

On Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a long-anticipated report from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, outlining what the Trump administration sees as the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic among American children. The commission concluded that roughly 40% of U.S. children now suffer from some form of persistent health issue, including obesity, autism, mental health disorders, and autoimmune diseases.

The report identifies four leading contributors: poor nutrition, chemical exposure, lack of physical activity and time outdoors, and overmedicalization of childhood ailments. One of the most alarming statistics cited is the extent to which children’s diets are now composed of what the commission called “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs), with 70% of a typical child’s diet made up of high-calorie, low-nutrient products that contain additives like artificial dyes, sweeteners, preservatives, and engineered fats.

“Whole foods grown and raised by American farmers must be the cornerstone of our children’s healthcare,” the commission urged. It also criticized government-supported programs like school lunches and food stamps for failing to encourage healthy choices, while noting that countries like Italy and Portugal have far lower consumption of UPFs.

The report also raised red flags about widespread chemical exposure through water, air, household items, and personal products. Items of concern included nonstick cookware, pesticides, cleaning supplies, and even fluoride in the water system. The commission referenced research indicating a 50% increase in microplastics found in human brain tissue between 2016 and 2024. It recommended that the U.S. lead in developing AI tools to monitor and mitigate chemical exposure.

Electromagnetic radiation from devices such as phones and laptops was also flagged as a potential contributor to rising disease rates, alongside a marked drop in physical activity among youth. Data cited from the American Heart Association shows 60% of adolescents aged 12-15 do not meet healthy cardiovascular benchmarks, and the majority of children aged 6-17 do not meet federal exercise guidelines.

The commission also tackled what it called a dangerous trend of overmedicating children without considering environmental or lifestyle factors first. Roughly 20% of U.S. children are on at least one prescription medication, including for ADHD, anxiety, and depression.

The commission specifically called out the American Medical Association’s recent stance on curbing health “disinformation,” arguing that it suppresses legitimate inquiry into vaccine safety and efficacy. It further noted that over half of European countries do not mandate vaccinations for school attendance, unlike all 50 U.S. states.

Trump, who established the MAHA Commission by executive order in February, signaled full support for Kennedy’s findings. “In some cases, it won’t be nice or it won’t be pretty, but we have to do it,” he said. “We will not stop until we defeat the chronic disease epidemic in America.”

Policy recommendations based on the report are expected to be delivered to President Trump by August. Among the initial proposals are expanded surveillance of pediatric prescriptions, creation of a national lifestyle trial program, and a new AI-driven system to detect early signs of chronic illness in children.