WHO and the Pandemic Fear Paradox: Counteracting fear -based policies
A critical analysis of WHO's contradictory arguments over time
In 2011, the World Health Organization Bulletin (WHO) published an article entitled "Health is more than the flu." Surprisingly, this article contains statements that contradict the current positions about the management of pandemics and the fear-based approach. Therefore, examining these contradictions and questioning the policies promoted by catastrophic fear is lawful and necessary.
In the article reviewed, it is said that the culture of fear surrounding pandemics leads to an unbalanced assessment of risks. That belief in imminent catastrophic danger can motivate precipitated actions before having sufficient information. This impulsive reaction can waste resources in ineffective preventive measures, thus eroding the public's confidence in health authorities.
The article states that it is alarming to realize that pandemic policies have been more based on fear than on scientific evidence. Influenza experts have promoted exaggerated statements about serious threats to public health, competing for care, budgets, and subsidies. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry and the media have taken advantage of these exaggerated statements, further feeding the fear cycle. We can affirm that the same has happened in the Covid era.
The review article exposes that planning based on catastrophic scenarios only leads to a repeated waste of resources and an unjustified fear. There is no reason to assume that future pandemics will be worse than the moderate of 1957 or 1968, therefore, the adoption of extreme preventive measures that endanger lives and undermine public trust is not justified.
Instead of fear-based policies, health experts advocate adaptive strategies that respond to the real situation.
The article also emphasizes that it is necessary to promote accountability and the independence of interest groups in the policy formulation process, prioritizing
Adaptive and flexible responses instead of rigid and inflexible definitions.
It is ironic that WHO, which in the past recognized the problems associated with exaggerated fear and policies based on catastrophic scenarios, now promotes Draconian measures and mass restrictions on behalf of the prevention of pandemics. Their own 2011 words demonstrate that current statements about the inevitability of a catastrophic disease (which is already called "X disease") are exaggerated and lack solid foundations.
The fact that WHO has changed its approach since then and adopted policies that are based on unfounded fear is worrying. This raises questions about its independence and objectivity, especially considering the pharmaceutical industry’s influence and other private interests in decision-making.
Irrational fear and alarmist exaggerations cannot be allowed to dictate the actions of health authorities.
Instead of promoting fear and immediate response without a solid base, it is necessary to promote public trust through evidence-based policies (so many times censored and crossed out of misinformation in the Covid era). This must imply promoting open debate and critical scrutiny of WHO decisions, as well as the participation of independent experts and civil society in the decision-making process.
The contradictions between the current arguments of the WHO and its previous statements highlight the need to critically question and analyze the policies and actions of the organization. WHO is not taking measures that fundamentally guarantee that decisions are taken objectively, based on evidence, instead has given signs that its measures are driven by fear and influence of particular interests.
Fear as a Promoter of health policies: a psychological perspective
In the Covid era, due to WHO's statements and actions, we have had to support:
Availability bias: the culture of fear fed by overexposure to negative cases and events through the media. The shocking images and dramatic stories tend to capture more attention and create an exaggerated perception of risk, resulting in the population overvaluing the risks and underestimating estimated effective treatments and observational studies. The overexposure to negative cases creates a culture of fear that distorted the realistic evaluation of the situation by the population.
Amplification effect: Anxiety and fear are amplified through communication and social infection. Fear spreads from person to person through social communication. When the population perceives that others are worried or scared, they are more likely to be infected with their emotions and responses, then a large amount of the population feels equally alarmed, and this is what has led to excessive and disproportionate responses.
Search solutions through non-rigorous methods: People tend to base their decisions and judgments on the information more easily available in their memory. If information about the dangers of a pandemic is more present in people's minds, they are more likely to perceive it as an imminent and exaggerated threat, even when there is no danger in its geographical scope. During the Covid era, news and information related to hazards and negative consequences occupied a prominent place in minds. This availability of negative information led to perceive the threat exaggeratedly and to adopt fear-based policies, without properly considering the broader scientific evidence
Confirmation bias: People tend to seek and accept information that confirms their existing beliefs and fears. In the context of the Covid era, this led to the adoption of fear-based policies, since the information that supports the severity of the threat can receive more attention and credibility. This confirmation bias led to an overvaluation of risks and the adoption of extreme measures based on fear, discarding what presented an objective perspective and based on scientific evidence, a large part of the population was carried only by information that reinforced information that reinforced their fears.
Temporary perspective bias: The bias of the present and the difficulty in evaluating the long-term risk. During the Covid era, people tended to focus on the immediate present and give priority to immediate action to feel safe. This led to precipitated and political decisions based on fear, instead of adopting a more balanced and evidence-based approach. This bias of the present led to impulsive decisions and the adoption of policies that focused solely on the urgency of the moment, without taking into account the long long-term-term implications. People tame in vaccination when there was total and absolute ignorance of the medium and long-term effects of genetically modified organisms based on modified organisms, forbidden for human beings until the summer of 2020. Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider balancing the balance Among public health measures, in addition to the possible negative impacts on other aspects of society, such as human rights and the economy.
In the video: Abdulla Assiri co-president of Saudi Arabia of the WHO working group on international health regulations and deputy vice minister for preventive health of Saudi Arabia states that WHO will restrict individual freedoms-
WHO does not adopt a balanced and evidence-based perspective, fundamental to avoid exaggerated responses and ensure that health policies are effective and provided to the real threat.
WHO turns fear into a powerful promoter of health policies, to ensure that the amendments to the international health regulations are approved and also promote a treaty of pandemics.
Therefore, it is essential to recognize and manipulate to create psychological biases that can distort our perception and real evaluation of risks. To base our decisions only on fear, but with it, our true representatives run the risk of adopting excessive, irrational, and ineffective policies, which may undoubtedly undermine public trust in health authorities.
WHO does not encourage a balanced approach based on scientific evidence in public health decision-making. Rather, it promotes the population's bias to accept the initiatives of its private investors loaded with conflicts of interest. WHO is not willing to take into account multiple perspectives, since it aims for Quality, to the extent that they oppose their narratives are considered misinformation and must be censored in social networks and media. Which is a way to stop realistically evaluating the risks and stop considering the long-term implications of the measures adopted. In doing so, WHO leaves us very badly prepared to face public health challenges and only acts to make the population fall into the domain of fear to expand their powers with the claim to force us to global health governance when we are endowed with sufficient knowledge and means to face health problems by ourselves. We are no longer in the nineteenth century. The WHO has nothing to offer us that we no longer have for ourselves, what it seeks is through fear the collection of a part of our taxes to administer from Geneva or New York, which without any difficulty we can administer ourselves without its interference.
WHO with its amendments to the International Health Regulations and its Pandemics Treaty, which aims to make its binding recommendations, which aims to eliminate the word dignity (a fundamental pillar of human rights) is responsible for consciously conducting humanity towards a reality of technocratic totalitarianism, with its growing dependence on handling technologies. WHO censures alternative points of view and denigrates
medical and scientific thinking that questions his narratives for the simple fact of being dissidents of his narratives. It also erodes critical thinking skills and promotes the voluntary sacrifice of our ability to think independently. Which results in the dangers of the group thought. We must urgently adopt strategies to preserve critical thinking against the growing authoritarian trends of WHO.
What the WHO means is that it is this organization that has the power to decide who or how many relatives may or may not attend the funeral or the burial of a relative. WHO pretends to be granted the power to the right to free circulation and suspends it when deciding. That the power to decide when you must undergo treatment or vaccination is granted. They are given 10,000 million dollars annually for this management. And for this, you are willing to spread the fear worldwide until you get it.
"WE ARE NOT AFRAID"
This substack aims to present a critical perspective on the role of fear in health policies.
References:
Health is more than the flu (2011). Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89(7), 539-540. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.089086
María Elena Navas. (April 22, 2020). Coronavirus: The dreaded "disease X" that WHO anticipated ... - BBC.
“The Psychology of Totalitarianism”. Matias Desmet. Chelsea Green Publishing
El Cronista - Danger of Pandemia: WHO warns about a disease that will be "worse than Covid"