There’s been a lot of social media umbrage at how the World Health Organization conveniently s
Defund the World Health Organization
To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.
The Latest From Epsilon Theory
DISCLOSURES
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.
I agree. With all of it.
But how exactly can this be done?
Not a rhetorical question, I’m interested in the mechanics of defunding the WHO.
Can you elaborate on what specifically you are asking that’s not covered in @bhunt last paragraph?
Seems pretty exact to me.
Aaron - any practical ideas as to what would motivate Gates foundation to move in this direction? I think that is what Em is asking. I have the same question. I’ve tangled with the Gates foundation a number of times around education policy, and well, let’s just say they are very insular and full of their own heritage.
Perhaps do it yourself through decentralization and technology, similar to this group. Or support people who have creative ideas in different areas that have more decentralized approaches. it is hard in this increasingly monopolized world for these groups to get the help they need. Maybe create a list of these groups so we can find them easily.
Not changing the Gates foundation…just coming up with a better option from the ground up that is hard to ignore. Thanks for your thoughts.
Tell him if he donates directly to the causes and bypasses the WHO we will collectively give him a pass for whatever Epstein-related crimes he almost certainly committed?
Like this - but notice how it was covered.
Then this:
My Gen X skeptical mind can think of plenty of possibilities. The billions in that foundation are dollars from our pockets paying higher margins than needed on Win 95, Exchange Server (required and overkill for a small company). That money could have been used to retain leaving talent, donated prior to compounding to the moon, or returned to investors. Having strong evidence of how an investment advisor with a couple billion was targeted with me caught in the middle, I shouldn’t be able to imagine the effort to target the foundation.
But we don’t have to imagine now. Just be open to possibilities. My guess is that if you wanted funds from the foundation, you needed to get yourself an Epstein tape of Bill Gates, or be someone of high influence. There’s no other logical reason for Gates to pay middle men. He spends lots of time reading research, and knows who is making serious advancements. He could donate straight to sources. I expect we’re just getting started with this story and @bhunt can’t speculate like we can until hard
evidence comes out (oh that’s bad).
What’s surprising to me is that apparently the general public didn’t know that Gates is a deviant. Did nobody see Revenge of the Nerds and consider what happens when that guy wins? He doesn’t become a hopeless romantic in a committed relationship. He spent hours on his computer watching porn fantasizing while the jock was making his own (yes I went to high school with Shawn Kemp). Gates was a long time keynote at CES, when it was just a gathering of geeks. Years ago I read that was the most profitable week for Las Vegas prostitution.
I just don’t see how that’s really relevant to what needs to happen. A foundation that size must have a board and staff and be audited. I would hope they don’t want to be stained as Racoons of Charity! that approved decisions because Gates couldn’t keep it in his pants and became an Epstein mark.
EDIT: said more succinctly above by @Desperate_Yuppie
Honest question, why does the WHO care about the Chinese government’s feelings when China contributes a tiny fraction of their overall funding? I’d completely understand the WHO bending over backwards for the US, but it just doesn’t make sense to me why they might do it for ‘China’s Dear Leader’. What’s in it for the WHO?
A couple of things are at work here, I think.
#1) Off the record (and you hear this from organizations like the Gates Foundation, too), people will tell you that WHO does not want to lose “access” to information and research that comes out of China, which they think might happen if they don’t toe the CCP line on issues like virus origin and Taiwan. My personal opinion is that this is largely a post-hoc justification for …
#2) WHO leadership positions have historically had VERY high input from China, as they’ve made this one of their major focus points for their UN participation. Both the former WHO director general, Margaret Chan (2006-2017), and the current director general, Tedros (2017+), were quite literally hand-picked by China.
In my prior non-finance life I used to work for one of the big GAVI donors. FWIW Gates puts a ton of money into research directly through direct grants and program-related investments as do a few other large donors in the space. Many of you will know them as they happen to be also among the world’s largest endowments…
As for getting rid of WHO - it is quite difficult, because they do more than just allocate funding. The example I dealt with the most would be vaccine/med device approval for countries that can’t afford their own regulatory body (e.g. FDA). They also do a fair bit of data collection in places that won’t do it on their own and then of course the aggregation also from places that do. I’m sure there are other areas within WHO scope I just don’t know about.
Now why China has managed to hijack the WHO but not say the World Bank or other UN agencies is beyond my paygrade, but certainly a question that I’d love to be able to answer. I guess my point is that just like the Bank it has a few other key activities that would be hard to fill by say a private foundation or a sovereign so defunding may have unforeseen consequences.