Latest news with #COVAX
NDTV
a day ago
- Health
- NDTV
RFK Jr Is Playing With Babies' Lives
When Robert F Kennedy Jr was appointed secretary of health and human services, everyone knew he was capable of doing great damage. He had a long history of indulging conspiracy theories, particularly when it came to vaccines. Already, his attempt to re-assess immunisation schedules in the US has outraged pediatricians. But his latest broadside against science, a decision to withdraw US funding from the global vaccine alliance GAVI, may kill far more children than anything he has so far tried at home. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, designed in cooperation between the US and UK governments, as well as philanthropic organisations - particularly Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation - was set up in 2000. Its mandate has been to increase access to vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them, primarily in the Global South. GAVI could have done more, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, but even so it is fair to describe it as one of the few great success stories for international collaboration in the past few decades. It's worth taking a moment to examine exactly how effective it has been at saving lives through its sustained focus on routine childhood vaccinations. One study published in the British Medical Journal calculated that its support for immunisation programs across the world had reduced infant mortality rates by over 9% and under-fives by 12%. During the pandemic, GAVI helped set up and administer the COVAX system for vaccine distribution to poorer countries. This took a while to get started, but eventually delivered two billion doses of various Covid-19 shots, saving hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of lives. Initially, the Global South saw the developed world hog far more doses than they needed - Canada, a country of 40 million, had reserved 154 million doses by December of 2020 - while most other countries had simply no way to access any shots at all. GAVI, through COVAX, played a central role in addressing this shocking disparity. Kennedy's decision to end support to one of America's few remaining positive interventions in the Global South is both immoral and dangerous. It will cause resentment about inequities in worldwide healthcare access to spread and further damage US standing abroad when compared to countries like China. Kennedy's deference to conspiracy theories and nativism will cost children their lives. It may even wind up being worse than the decision to stop funding USAID programs, which has already led to chaos in the some of the poorest parts of the world. (A study published in The Lancet this week predicted those cuts could result in more than 14 million extra deaths globally by 2030.) But it will hurt the US as well. Not just because Americans cannot insulate themselves completely from an unhealthy world - the pandemic taught us that. But also because GAVI was designed around the principles of the market, and respect for intellectual property rights, institutions that serve US companies and consumers most of all. Critics argue that it is far too respectful of property rights and the profit motive. The charity Medecins Sans Frontières, for example, has complained that GAVI pays too much to the rights-holders and developers of vaccines, instead of to generics manufacturers, and that means that it costs more to immunise each child than it needs to. (Still, MSF acknowledges that half of the vaccinations it delivers every year are bought with GAVI money, and responded to Kennedy's withdrawal of funding by saying that now, "countless children will die from vaccine-preventable diseases.") The fact is that if GAVI goes, then so will many countries' incentives to respect intellectual property rights in the healthcare sector. The last thing that US companies - not just in pharmaceuticals, but across the board - need is for the future centers of economic growth in the Global South to take a pick-and-choose approach to paying rights holders. And all of us will be hurt if new and innovative medicines aren't developed because the global norms around rights and payments change. If Kennedy is allowed to follow his anti-science instincts then the US will be left unhealthier, less respected and poorer - and a million children in the rest of the world will never live to see adulthood. (Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of 'Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy.)
Euronews
23-06-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Vaccine pact, Newsletter
Key diary dates In spotlight On Wednesday international vaccine alliance Gavi will stage a 'high-level pledging summit' co-hosted by the EU and the Gates Foundation, set to feature appearances from the presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council – Roberta Metsola, Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa – alongside tech royalty Bill Gates. Gates will be in the headlights in Brussels this week, since on Tuesday – before the Gavi event – he's set to participate in a debate with MEPs on the European Parliament's Development Committee. The Gavi fund raiser event aims to raise at least US$ 9 billion (€7.8 billion) from donors to fund vaccinations, predominantly in the global south. In February, President Trump took executive action to dismantle USAID, the US Agency for International Development, eliminating 90% of all American foreign aid contracts. The agency provided to impoverished and third-world countries around the world, with missions primarily concentrated in Africa and Asia, with vaccinations against diseases such as HIV. Given that the United States is estimated to have provided 26% of all aid supplied to African continent, it's expected that the impact of the funding freeze could cut total aid to Africa by 20%. The EU has provided €3.2 billion in financing to Gavi since 2003. There was enhanced cooperation between the two during the coronavirus pandemic in the COVAX programme. EU institutions together with individual member states have also contributed €2.55 billion to Gavi's programmes, amounting to one third of the budget of the campaign. There'll be a focus on EU pledges and the extent to which Europe is able or willing to take up the baton from US contributions, or at least signal its willingness to do so. Policy newsmakers A coalition of EU health ministers wants to set international limits on the number of children a single sperm or egg donor can produce, putting an end to the "super sperm donor" phenomenon. The proposal was introduced in Luxembourg last week by Sweden and Belgium during a meeting of EU health ministers, and it is backed by four other countries: France, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Spain. A Dutch sperm donor suspected of fathering over 550 children worldwide and other similar cases raise "new concerns about the potential psychosocial impact on donor-conceived children and donors,' Swedish Health Minister Acko Ankarberg Johansson said. Belgian Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke said that international limits would only be practical if supported by a comprehensive cross-border donor register. 'We badly need a Europe-wide quota supported by an EU register to ensure proper implementation,' he said. Policy Poll Data brief
Euronews
19-06-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Bill Gates in Brussels next week for vaccine push with the EU
Bill Gates will visit Brussels next week to participate in a Gavi vaccine alliance summit together with EU leaders to pledge provision of vaccine purchases for developing countries in an event co-hosted by The Gates Foundation and the European Union. The goal of the event is to collect €9 billion between 2026 and 2030. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the president of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, will likely represent the EU at the event. Gavi is a global vaccine alliance bringing together public and private actors that help vaccinate more than half the world's children against some of the deadliest diseases. The Gates Foundation, alongside the European Union, is its biggest sponsor. Gavi intends to immunise at least 500 million children in the next five years. This, according to their press release, would save 8-9 million lives. It is not immediately clear how much the EU will contribute to this plan financially. The EU has provided €3.2 billion in financing to Gavi since 2003. There was enhanced cooperation between the two during the coronavirus pandemic in the COVAX programme. EU institutions together with individual member states have also contributed €2.55 billion to Gavi's programmes, amounting to one third of the budget of the campaign. 'When the Gates Foundation made its first investment in Gavi 25 years ago, I couldn't have predicted the extraordinary impact it would have on combatting infectious diseases, lifting up economies and saving lives,' said Bill Gates in a press release announcing the summit in Brussels. "Together with Gavi, we have the goal to vaccinate 500 million children by 2030. That is why the European Union is proud to co-host Gavi's High-Level Pledging Summit in Brussels. Our support will remain steadfast,' von der Leyen is cited in the release as saying. Besides the Gavi's pledging summit, Bill Gates will also have other agenda items in Brussels, participating on Tuesday in a debate with MEPs on the European Parliament's Development Committee. The discussion will focus on assistance and innovation as drivers for improving health and living standards in the Global South. The press release of the Parliament adds that several international donors, like the United States and several EU countries, are cutting their aid budgets. The European Parliament has backed the mandatory microchipping of all cats and dogs across the EU, in a bid to reduce fraud and improve the enforcement of animal welfare standards. This brings the EU a step closer to setting minimum common standards for the breeding and keeping of cats and dogs, after the vote on amendments to the European Commission's original proposal. This vote paves the way for negotiations with EU ministers, who had already adopted their position last year. Currently, pet registration is mandatory in 24 EU member states, but the systems are fragmented. Only a private initiative, Europetnet, links national and regional databases in 17 countries. MEPs also proposed that dogs and cats imported from non-EU countries for sale must be microchipped before entry and registered in a national database. "This marks a clear move against illegal breeding and the irresponsible importation of animals from outside the EU," said Veronika Vrecionová, the Czech conservative MEP who acted as rapporteur on the file. Animal welfare organisations hailed the vote as a major breakthrough, noting that the law would ensure basic standards - including proper feeding, veterinary care and protection from abuse - helping eliminate unregulated backyard breeding and abusive puppy and kitten mills. Some earlier amendments by MEPs had sparked concerns for potentially facilitating illegal trade. However, animal welfare NGOs confirmed these issues were resolved in the final plenary vote. Crucially, the Parliament went beyond the Commission's original proposal by calling for full identification and registration of all kept cats and dogs, not just those placed on the market. "MEPs have finally taken a step today that we've been waiting for for years, one that could end the illegal pet trade once and for all in Europe," said Joe Moran, European office director for FOUR PAWS International. To prevent the exploitation of animals, MEPs also want to limit the number of litters a female animal can have during her lifetime. The rules would apply universally to all breeders, regardless of their size. In particular, the European Parliament took a positive step by including small breeders in the scope of the proposal, according to Iwona Mertin, companion animals programme leader at Eurogroup for Animals. "This is significant, especially in countries where 80% of breeders produce fewer than four litters per year. Without this, a major loophole would remain," she said. There are currently 127 million cats and 104 million dogs in the EU, with about 44% of households owning a pet. The sector's annual value is estimated at €1.3 billion, according to EU Commission data. MEPs also left the door open to extending the law's protections to other companion animals in the future, by supporting the creation of a so-called "Positive List," namely a list that would allow only species deemed suitable to be kept and sold as pets. Final negotiations between the Parliament and EU ministers are expected to begin soon, marking the last phase before the law can be adopted.
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is right: The World Health Organization isn't working
One of the first actions of the new Trump administration was to withdraw from the World Health Organization. Many public health advocates quickly raised alarm bells, citing longstanding arguments about the importance of the agency and what the U.S. stood to lose by withdrawing its membership and money. It is unlikely that these advocates paused to consider that leaving the WHO is exactly the disruption needed after years of reform efforts that were long on talk but short on results. One of us knows this firsthand, having worked inside the WHO at the highest levels; the other has seen this as a private-sector innovator seeking to navigate its bureaucratic maze. The WHO was created in 1948 with the objectives of the 'attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health' and to address the spread of infectious disease outbreaks across countries. U.S. leadership at the time and through the decades since has been critical to both the science of WHO and its finances. The U.S. currently contributes just over $1 billion and is by far the largest national donor to the WHO budget. But the issue is not money, a mere .06 percent of the U.S. government budget. The issue is the organization. The WHO at one point in its history was the world's true north star for infectious diseases and the promotion of health. Sadly, the organization has deteriorated, in both management effectiveness and scientific expertise, making it less efficient and more chaotic. During COVID, when the world needed it most, the WHO failed at many levels. Delays in declaring COVID to be an airborne virus remain an astounding uncorrected error. Meanwhile, the central bureaucratic processes of WHO and COVAX (the Geneva-based coalition launched by the WHO to 'coordinate' the COVID response across agencies) often impeded rather than supported an effective response at regional and country levels. Even those who acknowledge its limits often state that the WHO needs U.S. support because it performs key functions in medicines and vaccines that advance American private-sector interests in health. Or they say that, absent U.S. funding, the WHO will be dominated by America's enemies, with any chance for reform doomed as long as the U.S. remains on the outside looking in. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. None of WHO's functions determine the success or failure of the American private sector. Slow processes and heavy bureaucracy in working with the private sector through WHO's Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors means that the agency is often a roadblock to advancing lifesaving American health products. And when it comes to America's putative enemies, concerns about China and other adversaries have been present during years of U.S. full funding. WHO reform has been a theme for the last two decades for the U.S. Yet, despite recent assertions last month by WHO leadership that the organization has 'reformed totally,' it continues to have serious human resources issues, and even its own reform efforts (from strengthening country offices to addressing harassment after the U.N.s largest sexual abuse scandal) remain continuing problems. The U.S. government does get value out of its relationship with WHO. Nonetheless, it is at far too great a price and for far too little return, at far too slow a pace. Yes, having a void in global health over time will hurt American interests, but continuing business as usual will hurt America and the world far more in the years ahead. For those committed to serving the mission of global health, engagement rather than hand-wringing is the best strategy. What does this look like? First, ensure that the withdrawal announcement from WHO results in changes. The disengagement should not be binary — either fully engaged or nothing. Making this announcement matter means launching negotiations for a retooling of the global health architecture. Important funding meetings are happening this year, not just for the WHO but for all major 'global health initiatives,' including the Global Fund, which provides funding and leadership in the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and was created largely with American leadership. Leveraging the withdrawal notice period — however long it eventually is — to negotiate targeted roles for other institutions in the wake of pulling back from WHO is smart for America. Second, look for immediate and better solutions to prepare the U.S. for the next pandemic. Past experience with COVID-19, Ebola and mPox have taught us that relying on public organizations with time-limited funding is always going to be a losing battle. Investments and lessons learned from Operation Warp Speed have laid the foundation for smarter approaches to pandemic response, whereby private organizations can step up to sustainably serve both non-emergency global health needs and outbreak roles, with customers as the primary funding mechanism. Finally, work with other countries to remake a global health organization that is fit for purpose. The argument has always been that if you tore WHO down and started over, it would end up looking like it does today. This is not true. An organization that has strong regional offices, with an efficient, small central leadership and a focused mandate, would address both budget and mismanagement issues and set the organization up for succeeding at a narrower set of achievable, measurable, targeted goals. Clearly, the abrupt halt to U.S. involvement in WHO has caused considerable immediate uncertainty for both global health programs and the many millions of patients around the world who benefit from U.S. financial, medicinal and scientific support. But it can also signal a new opportunity to fix at last what is broken and failing in global health. Edward Kelley is the former director of service delivery and safety at the World Health Organization and head of Global Heath for Apiject Systems, an injection technology company. Jay Walker is chairman of Apiject and founder of over 60 companies, including and the tenth most patented living inventor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-03-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Trump is right: The World Health Organization isn't working
One of the first actions of the new Trump administration was to withdraw from the World Health Organization. Many public health advocates quickly raised alarm bells, citing longstanding arguments about the importance of the agency and what the U.S. stood to lose by withdrawing its membership and money. It is unlikely that these advocates paused to consider that leaving the WHO is exactly the disruption needed after years of reform efforts that were long on talk but short on results. One of us knows this firsthand, having worked inside the WHO at the highest levels; the other has seen this as a private-sector innovator seeking to navigate its bureaucratic maze. The WHO was created in 1948 with the objectives of the 'attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health' and to address the spread of infectious disease outbreaks across countries. U.S. leadership at the time and through the decades since has been critical to both the science of WHO and its finances. The U.S. currently contributes just over $1 billion and is by far the largest national donor to the WHO budget. But the issue is not money, a mere .06 percent of the U.S. government budget. The issue is the organization. The WHO at one point in its history was the world's true north star for infectious diseases and the promotion of health. Sadly, the organization has deteriorated, in both management effectiveness and scientific expertise, making it less efficient and more chaotic. During COVID, when the world needed it most, the WHO failed at many levels. Delays in declaring COVID to be an airborne virus remain an astounding uncorrected error. Meanwhile, the central bureaucratic processes of WHO and COVAX (the Geneva-based coalition launched by the WHO to 'coordinate' the COVID response across agencies) often impeded rather than supported an effective response at regional and country levels. Even those who acknowledge its limits often state that the WHO needs U.S. support because it performs key functions in medicines and vaccines that advance American private-sector interests in health. Or they say that, absent U.S. funding, the WHO will be dominated by America's enemies, with any chance for reform doomed as long as the U.S. remains on the outside looking in. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. None of WHO's functions determine the success or failure of the American private sector. Slow processes and heavy bureaucracy in working with the private sector through WHO's Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors means that the agency is often a roadblock to advancing lifesaving American health products. And when it comes to America's putative enemies, concerns about China and other adversaries have been present during years of U.S. full funding. WHO reform has been a theme for the last two decades for the U.S. Yet, despite recent assertions last month by WHO leadership that the organization has 'reformed totally,' it continues to have serious human resources issues, and even its own reform efforts (from strengthening country offices to addressing harassment after the U.N.s largest sexual abuse scandal) remain continuing problems. The U.S. government does get value out of its relationship with WHO. Nonetheless, it is at far too great a price and for far too little return, at far too slow a pace. Yes, having a void in global health over time will hurt American interests, but continuing business as usual will hurt America and the world far more in the years ahead. For those committed to serving the mission of global health, engagement rather than hand-wringing is the best strategy. What does this look like? First, ensure that the withdrawal announcement from WHO results in changes. The disengagement should not be binary — either fully engaged or nothing. Making this announcement matter means launching negotiations for a retooling of the global health architecture. Important funding meetings are happening this year, not just for the WHO but for all major 'global health initiatives,' including the Global Fund, which provides funding and leadership in the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and was created largely with American leadership. Leveraging the withdrawal notice period — however long it eventually is — to negotiate targeted roles for other institutions in the wake of pulling back from WHO is smart for America. Second, look for immediate and better solutions to prepare the U.S. for the next pandemic. Past experience with COVID-19, Ebola and mPox have taught us that relying on public organizations with time-limited funding is always going to be a losing battle. Investments and lessons learned from Operation Warp Speed have laid the foundation for smarter approaches to pandemic response, whereby private organizations can step up to sustainably serve both non-emergency global health needs and outbreak roles, with customers as the primary funding mechanism. Finally, work with other countries to remake a global health organization that is fit for purpose. The argument has always been that if you tore WHO down and started over, it would end up looking like it does today. This is not true. An organization that has strong regional offices, with an efficient, small central leadership and a focused mandate, would address both budget and mismanagement issues and set the organization up for succeeding at a narrower set of achievable, measurable, targeted goals. Clearly, the abrupt halt to U.S. involvement in WHO has caused considerable immediate uncertainty for both global health programs and the many millions of patients around the world who benefit from U.S. financial, medicinal and scientific support. But it can also signal a new opportunity to fix at last what is broken and failing in global health. Edward Kelley is the former director of service delivery and safety at the World Health Organization and head of Global Heath for Apiject Systems, an injection technology company. Jay Walker is chairman of Apiject and founder of over 60 companies, including
