Visit our Re-post guidelines
As the World Health Organization (WHO) sounds the alarm on mpox, declaring it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), critics are questioning whether this decision is a necessary precaution or an overreaction that could have far-reaching consequences.
On August 14, 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of mpox in Africa a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).1 This decision, made by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has ignited a fierce debate among health experts, policymakers, and the public. While some view it as a necessary step to curb the spread of a potentially dangerous virus, others see it as an overreach that could have unintended consequences for global health policy and individual rights.
The declaration comes at a time when the world is still grappling with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions about the appropriateness and potential implications of such a high-level alert for a disease that has historically been confined to specific regions.
The Mpox Outbreak: Questioning the 'Facts and Figures'
Challenging the Simplistic Viral Model
While the WHO has presented what it calls "facts and figures" about the mpox outbreak, it's crucial to approach these numbers with a critical eye. The WHO's model of disease causality, which focuses primarily on viral transmission, is increasingly viewed as outdated and overly simplistic by many health experts.
Dr. James Olson-Lee, commenting on the NVIC article, points out: "Understand that viruses are everywhere, some even help us; once they find a host they start replicating and in that process the chances of mutations is always present- so, in a very real sense 'gain of function' research to force mutations is meaningless- it's happening all the time."2
This perspective aligns with the growing body of research on the human virome and microbiome, which has fundamentally challenged our understanding of disease causality over the past 25 years. Unfortunately, this nuanced view of human health seems absent from the WHO's analysis.
The Multifactorial Nature of Disease
Disease occurrence and severity are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including:
- Stress and psychological well-being
- Nutritional status
- Environmental exposures
- Genetic predispositions
- The state of an individual's microbiome and virome
As one commenter on the NVIC article astutely noted, "We live in a literal sea of pathogens. The air, the water, the food, all forms of solid liquid and gas, they are all saturated with pathogens. Always have been. Always will be. They are integrated into our bodies and our environment in many different symbiotic ways which are beneficial for us."3
This holistic view of health and disease is noticeably absent from the WHO's presentation of the mpox situation.
WHO's Reported Numbers: A Limited Perspective
With this context in mind, let's examine the figures presented by the WHO:
According to WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros, there have been more than 14,000 reported cases and 524 reported deaths in Africa this year, a significant increase from previous years.4 The outbreak has been particularly severe in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with cases spreading to new provinces and neighboring countries.
While these numbers are concerning, they provide an incomplete picture of the health situation. They don't account for:
- The overall health status of the affected populations
- Environmental factors that might be contributing to decreased immunity
- Potential misdiagnoses or overdiagnoses due to increased surveillance
- The role of other pathogens or health conditions that might be contributing to symptoms attributed to mpox
The New Strain Narrative: Cause for Skepticism
The WHO has highlighted the emergence of a new mpox strain, or "clade," known as clade 1b, describing it as more severe than clade 2.5 However, this focus on viral mutation as the primary driver of disease spread and severity is reminiscent of similar narratives during the COVID-19 pandemic, which often oversimplified complex health dynamics.
As Barbara Loe Fisher points out, "The public has good reason to question why there are so many pathogens suddenly mutating, like coronavirus and H5N1 avian influenza and monkeypox, which are prompting the accelerated development of more genetically engineered biological products called 'vaccines' in a vacuum of scientific knowledge about how those products could compromise the biological integrity of humans."6
This statement underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing disease outbreaks, one that goes beyond the narrow focus on viral strains and vaccines.
The PHEIC Declaration: Implications and Criticisms
Accelerating Vaccine Access
One of the immediate consequences of the PHEIC declaration is the triggering of the Emergency Use Listing process for two mpox vaccines. Dr. Tedros stated that this would accelerate vaccine access in lower-income countries that have not yet approved the drugs.7
"Emergency Use Listing also enables partners including Gavi and UNICEF to procure vaccines for distribution," Tedros said.8
However, this move has sparked debate about the safety and efficacy of fast-tracked vaccines. Critics argue that the accelerated approval process could compromise thorough safety evaluations, which was the case for the mRNA Covid jabs which were deployed without adequate safety or efficacy testing through an Emergency Use Authorization.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The WHO has developed a $15 million response plan for surveillance, preparedness, and response activities.9 Critics argue that this allocation of resources might be disproportionate given other pressing global health concerns.
"WHO anticipates an immediate funding requirement of an initial US$ 15 million to support surveillance, preparedness and response activities," the organization stated.10
Potential for Overreach
Some experts worry that the PHEIC declaration could lead to unnecessary restrictions on travel and trade, echoing concerns raised during previous global health emergencies. The balance between public health measures and individual liberties remains a contentious issue.
Expert Perspectives: Voices of Caution
Barbara Loe Fisher's Critique
Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), has raised significant concerns about the implications of the WHO's decision. In a recent report, Fisher draws parallels between mpox gain-of-function (GOF) research and controversial GOF studies on coronaviruses and bird flu.11
Fisher states, "The public has good reason to be vaccine hesitant. We have good reason to question why there are so many pathogens suddenly mutating, like coronavirus and H5N1 avian influenza and monkeypox, which are prompting the accelerated development of more genetically engineered biological products called 'vaccines' in a vacuum of scientific knowledge about how those products could compromise the biological integrity of humans."12
This perspective highlights the need for caution and thorough scientific scrutiny before rushing into widespread vaccine deployment.
Children's Health Defense's Concerns
The Children's Health Defense (CHD) organization has also voiced reservations about the WHO's approach. In an article published on August 7, 2024, CHD raised questions about the safety and efficacy of the mpox vaccines that might receive Emergency Use Listing.13
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare expert quoted in the CHD article, pointed out that both available mpox vaccines - Jynneos and ACAM2000 - have known side effects including myocarditis and pericarditis. Nass also highlighted that the efficacy of these vaccines is largely inferred from immunogenicity studies rather than direct testing against disease prevention.14
"Neither of the vaccines are approved for children under age 18, although in 2022, Jynneos received emergency use authorization in the U.S. for children under 18 considered to be at high risk," the CHD article notes.15
Contextualizing the Mpox Emergency
Comparison to Other Health Threats
Critics argue that the focus on mpox may be disproportionate when compared to other, more widespread health issues. For instance:
- Heart disease and cancer collectively claim millions of lives annually.16
- Substance abuse, including alcoholism and tobacco use, continues to be a major contributor to preventable deaths globally.17
- Traffic accidents cause over 1.3 million deaths yearly.18
The question arises: Is the allocation of resources and attention to mpox justified in light of these ongoing health crises?
Lessons from COVID-19
The mpox declaration comes in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has left many members of the public wary of emergency health measures. There are concerns about:
- Economic impacts of potential restrictions
- Public trust in health authorities
- The balance between public health measures and individual liberties
As one commenter on the NVIC article noted, "Money, Power and Control is what it's all about. Need to vote them all out and live our lives and not reside in fear. Stand up for ourselves and our families".19
The Role of Pharmaceutical Companies
Vaccine Development and Profit Concerns
The PHEIC declaration has implications for vaccine manufacturers. Critics worry about potential profiteering, drawing parallels to concerns raised during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As Barbara Loe Fisher points out, "several lucrative government contracts have paid the vaccine makers hundreds of millions to stockpile the vaccines".20
Transparency and Accountability
There are calls for greater transparency in the vaccine development process and clearer accountability measures for pharmaceutical companies involved in emergency response efforts.
Global Health Governance: A Broader Perspective
The WHO's Authority and National Sovereignty
The mpox declaration reignites debates about the WHO's authority and its impact on national sovereignty. Some worry that WHO recommendations could become de facto mandatory, pressuring countries to implement measures they might not deem necessary.
The Proposed Pandemic Treaty
Ongoing negotiations for a global pandemic treaty have sparked fears about potential infringements on national decision-making in health matters.21 The mpox declaration adds another layer to this complex debate.
As one NVIC commenter stated, "Our vote continues to be that any medical product, vaccine, therapeutic, or anything likewise associated with a 'public health issue' or crisis, should be prohibited from being patented, thereby removing the financial incentives for these corporations to further develop harmful pathogens which ultimately lead to robust profit for their companies and the pharmaceutical industry in general."22
Conclusion: Balancing Precaution and Proportion
The WHO's declaration of mpox as a PHEIC undoubtedly aims to preemptively address a potential health threat. However, this decision raises important questions about prioritization in global health, the balance between preparedness and overreaction, and the complex interplay between international health governance and national sovereignty.
As we navigate this latest health challenge, it's crucial to maintain a sense of proportion and critical thinking. Health authorities must balance the need for preparedness with respect for civil liberties, national sovereignty, and the multitude of other health priorities facing the global community.
Moving forward, there is a clear need for:
- Increased transparency in decision-making processes for global health emergencies
- More robust mechanisms for international cooperation that respect national sovereignty
- Continued research into the safety and efficacy (or lack thereof) of rapidly developed vaccines
- A holistic approach to global health that considers a wide range of health threats and acknowledges the multifactorial nature of disease
Only through a measured, transparent, and comprehensive approach to global health can we hope to address the myriad challenges we face while maintaining public trust and cooperation. As the world grapples with the implications of this latest PHEIC declaration, it's essential that all stakeholders - from policymakers to the public - engage in informed, critical dialogue about the best path forward.
Interested in standing up for your health rights, locally, nationally and internationally? Join and use Stand for Health Freedom's advocacy portal.
More Related Reading:
Who Funds the WHO? Unseen Power: The WHO Foundation’s Donors and the Potential Impact on Global Health
References
1: Zachary Stieber, "World Health Organization Declares Mpox Outbreak in Africa a Global Health Emergency," The Epoch Times, August 14, 2024.
2: Barbara Loe Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks and the Return of Smallpox Vaccine," National Vaccine Information Center, July 22, 2024.
3: Ibid.
4: Stieber, "World Health Organization Declares Mpox Outbreak."
5: Ibid.
6: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
7: Brenda Baletti, "WHO Triggers Emergency Use Listing for Monkeypox Vaccines," The Defender, August 7, 2024.
8: Ibid.
9: Stieber, "World Health Organization Declares Mpox Outbreak."
10: Ibid.
11: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
12: Ibid.
13: Baletti, "WHO Triggers Emergency Use Listing."
14: Ibid.
15: Ibid.
16: World Health Organization, "The top 10 causes of death," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
17: World Health Organization, "Alcohol," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
18: World Health Organization, "Road traffic injuries," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
19: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
20: Ibid.
21: World Health Organization, "Intergovernmental Negotiating Body," accessed August 15, 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/
22: Fisher, "Mutated Monkeypox Outbreaks."
Disqus