October 15, 1999 - "I make this decision in the spirit of full and complete transparency, but above all in the service of public health," said WHO Director-General Gro Harlem Brundtland, while justifying her latest attack against the tobacco industry a few days ago ^[!].

This is truly the sinister joke of the day. Public health is much better served by taking care of starvation, malaria and other diseases that are real and tangible -- not computer-generated.

Let us consider transparency. This may be indeed the first time in the last few months Gro did not lie as soon as she moved her lips. But what is visible through this transparency is not what Gro wants us to perceive. In fact, it is quite transparent - indeed crystal-clear - that:

• The WHO is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to lie on tobacco, and to further the promotion of smoking cessation devices manufactured by that industry.
• The WHO is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to firm up that industry's interests in the world, especially in (but not limited to) the Third World countries.
• The payment by the pharmaceutical industry is in the form of contributions to the WHO - both directly, and through its associates and satellite industries/activities.
• The WHO's political agenda is inspired -- actually dictated -- by the United States of America and its desire to eliminate diversity and independent thinking in a variety of ways (first target: orthodox scientific thinking) if that reasoning is contrary to the US political agenda. This (achieved through slander, fraud, and propaganda) is a mandatory prelude to the slow, gradual, but steady implementation of the One World Order programme of which the US intends to be the political and financial master.

Because of the reasons above, the WHO has become a WHOre.

As such, the WHO is no longer worthy of credibility and/or influence in the international community, but deserves instead distrust and contempt. The WHO burns more than half the money it gets through a monster internal bureaucracy that feeds itself instead of passing the benefits it receives to the people it is supposed to help. The WHO must be dismantled and replaced with a leaner, more efficient, and especially more honest organisation that cannot take private funding, and is managed by member countries directly, and on an equal basis. Responsible member countries should send a clear signal by withdrawing their membership. That would be a good way to start the Third Millennium with dignity.

Major private funding by any entity inevitably turns those who are funded into enablers of the will of the donors. While there is nothing wrong in the concept per se, it is quite dangerous when applied to organisations with the scope, the influence, and the purposes of the WHO. It indeed becomes an extreme, clear and present danger to the politics and the economies of entire nations, as well as to the individual freedoms of citizens in those nations.

The endorsement of anti-tobacco by the World Health Organisation belittles the importance and the function of real science (and real human needs) to such an extreme; the function of science as a tool for actual progress and unbiased information is in serious danger of being irreparably compromised. This catastrophe wouldn't be new to mankind. The last time it happened was when the Roman Empire fell, and the world was thrown into over 800 years of Middle Ages and 300 years of recovery. During that time, real scientific knowledge was controlled by one entity - the Church, and kept as an instrument of power and control instead of enlightenment.

The endorsement by the WHO of what, without a shade of doubt, is blatant scientific fraud and/or fraudulent methodology for political purposes is but one indication of the prevalence of a type of depravity that transcends simple monetary corruption and permeates the very foundations of human morality. The result of this lack of values is either anarchy or, more likely, a new and obscure technology-based social Middle Ages much like what depicted in the movie GATACA, where perfectly healthy individuals operated in a perfectly controlled society - in itself, the epitome of the worst disease there is.

Finally, contrary to the belief of many as well as my own until recently, I have learned through conversations with international lawyers that grounds may well in fact exist to sue the WHO into perdition in much the same way the anti-tobacco cartel sues the tobacco industry. Systematic litigation may not be the most ethical way to obtain public policy results, but in this day and age it is the effective thing to do. This is a war, and it's either health dictatorship or freedom.

While I am not qualified to substantiate or disprove this legal hypothesis, it is certainly something worth looking into in great detail.

Gian Turci
FORCES INTERNATIONAL