The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) was established in 2018 as a joint initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission, with the goal of strengthening global preparedness for health emergencies. The board comprises of experts from around the world and is responsible for monitoring the state of readiness for health emergencies and making recommendations to enhance preparedness.
However, recent allegations and rumors have emerged regarding the true nature and agenda of the GPMB. There are claims that the board is not just a neutral body for monitoring and improving global health preparedness, but a platform for a conspiracy of hidden powers. The purpose of this article is to examine these allegations and to shed light on the true nature of the GPMB.
The first suspicion about the GPMB arose from its funding and the sources of its funding. The board is funded by contributions from member states, international organizations, and private corporations. While this seems normal, the nature of the contributions and the donors themselves raise questions. For instance, some of the largest contributors are multinational corporations with interests in the pharmaceutical, biotech, and healthcare industries.
These corporations have a vested interest in the global health system and the policies and procedures that are put in place to manage health emergencies. It is plausible that they could use their contributions to influence the board and shape the recommendations and decisions made by the board to serve their interests. This could compromise the independence and neutrality of the GPMB, making it a platform for corporate interests rather than public health.
The second suspicion about the GPMB is related to its composition and the selection process for its members. The board is made up of experts from around the world who are selected based on their expertise and experience. However, the selection process is not transparent and there is no public information available about how the members are chosen or who chooses them.
The lack of transparency in the selection process raises questions about the impartiality and independence of the board. It is possible that the members are chosen based on their political affiliations or their ties to the corporations that fund the GPMB. This could result in the board being biased towards certain interests and agendas and compromise its ability to make impartial decisions.
The third suspicion about the GPMB is related to its operations and decision-making process. The board is responsible for monitoring the state of readiness for health emergencies and making recommendations to enhance preparedness. However, the board operates in secret and its decision-making process is not transparent.
There is no information available about how the board makes its decisions or how the recommendations are formed. It is possible that the decisions are influenced by the interests of the corporations that fund the board or by political interests. This could result in the recommendations being shaped to serve certain agendas rather than the public interest.
In conclusion, the allegations and rumors about the GPMB raise questions about the true nature and agenda of the board. The sources of its funding, the selection process for its members, and the secrecy of its operations and decision-making process raise suspicions about the impartiality and independence of the board. It is imperative that these allegations are investigated and the true nature and agenda of the GPMB are uncovered. The public has the right to know if their health and safety are being compromised by hidden powers and interests.
