The W.H.O., from its inception, is a corrupt organization that has nothing to do with health, but everything to do with power and control. The only reason they removed Florence Ashley from their roster of super villains is optics, to appease and squelch public outcry. They will find a replacement soon enough.
To think that this despicable and corrupt organization can be held accountable is utterly naive. The only win will be when the people finally wake up to the wide scale corruption and fraud being perpetrated upon all of us.
The number of people with conflicts and the nature and extent of those conflicts are shocking. The decision-making body is stacked against us.
Perhaps this has been addressed and I missed it. Doesn't the W.H.O. have robust conflict-of-interest rules of its own? Is the organization even following its own rules? If the W. H. O.'s rules permit that many conflicts of interest, they are scandalously in need to being overhauled. That can be a separate issue.
Thank you so much for your diligent work to expose of the conflicts of interest here.
Well done.
See link on history of ILGT association with NAMBLA for about 15 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA_consultative_status_controversy
The W.H.O., from its inception, is a corrupt organization that has nothing to do with health, but everything to do with power and control. The only reason they removed Florence Ashley from their roster of super villains is optics, to appease and squelch public outcry. They will find a replacement soon enough.
To think that this despicable and corrupt organization can be held accountable is utterly naive. The only win will be when the people finally wake up to the wide scale corruption and fraud being perpetrated upon all of us.
Fantastic deep dive into the conflicts of interest. I've always wondered, is it the ideology or is it about the money? Turns out, it's usually both.
The number of people with conflicts and the nature and extent of those conflicts are shocking. The decision-making body is stacked against us.
Perhaps this has been addressed and I missed it. Doesn't the W.H.O. have robust conflict-of-interest rules of its own? Is the organization even following its own rules? If the W. H. O.'s rules permit that many conflicts of interest, they are scandalously in need to being overhauled. That can be a separate issue.