- CHILDRE'S HEALTH DEFENSE - Norbert Häring - APRIL 26, 2023 -
WHO’s governing body has signed off on a draft resolution on the use of behavioural sciences in health policy. A pamphlet issued by the Rockefeller Foundation makes clear what it is really about: extensive manipulation of public opinion n the interests of a world authority that believes itself to be in possession of scientific truth.
The Executive Board of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a meeting that ended on February 7, has adopted a recommendation to the World Health Assembly, which will meet at the end of May, to pass a resolution with the title “Behavioural sciences for better health.” The basis is a draft resolution submitted by the USA together with eleven other countries, mostly in Asia.
The text of the proposed resolution states (in excerpts):
“The 76th World Health Assembly,
Acknowledging that (…) interventions to change behaviour of either individuals regarding their own health or health service employees and health professionals requires a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach that includes but is not limited to anthropology, communications, economics, neuroscience, psychology, and sociology;
Concerned about the impact on behaviours of health-related misinformation and disinformation, including during the COVID-19 pandemic;
URGES member states (…)
to develop and allocate sustainable human and financial resources for building or strengthening technical capacity for the use of behavioural science in public health;
to establish behavioural science functions or units for generating, sharing and translating evidence, to inform a national strategy as appropriate;
RQQUESTS the Director General to,
to mainstream behavioural science approaches in the work of the Organization and to advocate for necessary structural considerations, including as appropriate behavioural science teams, units or functions and for the allocation of sufficient funding and human resources;
to support Member States, at their request, in developing or strengthening of behavioural science function(s) or unit (s);
to evaluate, within existing resources, based on a prior request by the Member State(s) concerned, the behavioural science initiatives such as policies, interventions, programmes and research and share the results of such evaluations;
to provide behavioural science-related technical assistance, normative guidance, capacity-building and knowledge sharing to the Member States on their requests including through the WHO Academy;
to compile and disseminate evidence on improved outcomes resulting from the application of the behavioural sciences to public health
to develop guidance, including through application of behavioural science, that addresses public health priorities including vaccines hesitancy, as well as misinformation and disinformation that conflicts with public health-based evidence.”
De facto, these behavioral science approaches and those who employ them will come overwhelmingly from top U.S. universities and are funded by major corporate-affiliated foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust.
Overall, the resolution might seem well-meaning and harmless to normal recipients. However, anyone who has looked more closely at WHO will think of announcements such as “We own the science” or the only recently issued goal of “vaccinating” no less than 100% of people over 60 and health care workers against Covid, the demonization of Covid vaccine skeptics in a WHO video, or WHO’s NSA-style monitoring of global social media, and will therefore read with a bit more suspicion.
Experience suggests that the WHO guidelines and the public evaluation of government action, which would both be issued only “upon request” will not be as voluntary and non-binding as is supposed to appear, especially for poorer countries that are dependent on donations from foundations, international organizations and richer governments.
It is also noticeable that WHO is only supposed to provide information about “improved” outcomes through the application of behavioural science, not about possible negative consequences. The authors of the resolution want to create the impression that such negative consequences or ethical problems cannot exist, if behavioral science is used to influence or manipulate people in favour of behaviors desired by an agency or government.
Praise from the Rockefeller Foundation
And that’s where the Rockefeller Foundation comes in, thankfully making it clearer what this is all about. In a tweet they have been thanking the WHO Board of Directors for embracing the resolution, while at thge same time introducing the Mercury program that they are funding together with the Gates Foundation.