The call is open only for alumni of the Emerging Voices for Global Health programme from one of the cohorts between 2010-2018.

You find all info on the call here: Call EV residents 2019 

“Reaffirming primary health care as the most equitable and sustainable strategy to achieve UHC, at the Astana conference, was one of the main areas of progress in 2018. But PHC (& UHC) cannot be achieved without good leadership and governance. Also, the mere existence of health policies/strategies does not suffice, their implementation matters too, and perhaps even more!”  (Anar Ulikpan, EV 2010, Mongolia)

“Globally, is it possible for us to channel our energy from being excited for HSG Dubai 2020 to rather implementing the latest Liverpool statement? Nationally, the South African health system is in crisis, always has been and will continue to be unless we galvanise, tackle this head on, who’s in?”   (Shakira Choonara, EV 2014, SA)

“Preventable diseases killing us by the millions, while burdening health systems and national economies, could have been and may be sizably cut down through the evergreen promise of PHC. Countries rushing to invest or divest to win immediate political favor shouldn’t miscalculate the importance of looking into the future.”  (Irene Torres, Fundaction Octaedro, Ecuador)

“In global health, we are obsessed by events and debates at the international arena, and we often lose track of successes at the national level. For instance, few people noticed that 2018 was a special year for public health legislation in my home country, Philippines. Since January, Congress has passed several important laws for enhancing universal health coverage, ramping up the response to the growing HIV epidemic, setting up mental health care systems, enhancing children’s life chances through investments in the first 1,000 days, improving access to quality cancer care, raising standards for occupational health and safety, among others. The first law of public health? Never underestimate the public health power of the law. If well-crafted, broadly-supported, and effectively-implemented, legislation can save lives – one nation at a time!”  (Renzo Guinto, EV 2014, Philippines)

“The interest in evidence-informed health policy and practice has been increasing. Searching ‘knowledge translation’ in PubMed showed a seven-fold increase in publications in the last decade. Yet, researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholder must exchange more, and there’s still much work to be done and money to be invested in institutionalizing such efforts.”  (Olivia Biermann, EV 2018, Germany/Sweden)

“2018: The year GoFundMe became standard of care, or the story of Why We Need Universal Health Care in Every Country.” (Kati Wilkins, EV 2016, US)

“The global health community needs to step up its game on health and the environment. The global health community continues to be too quiet about the importance of climate change for health. Individuals from countries that need to adapt their behaviour (EU, China, Canada, UK, Australia…) need to make climate engagement part of their work – keeping temperature increase to 1.5C is an easy message. The COP meets every year – put pressure on your government to be bold.” (Rachel Hammonds, Canada)

“Sexual ‘health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being…’. So, to advance health, global health institutions must combat sexual abuse, harassment and exploitation at all levels, in their programming, as well as in the organisational culture, policy and practice. We must practice what we preach!” (Clara Affun-Adegbulu, UK)

Dear Colleagues,

It’s still conference & meeting season. This week’s IHP issue pays attention, among others, to WISH Qatar 2018, the International Conference on Family Planning in Kigali, the 4^th People’s Health Assembly in Dhaka (which started today, after a last minute venue change), the 40^th Global Fund Board meeting, last week’s Women Leaders in Global Health conference, … but there’s also World Pneumonia Day, World Antibiotic Awareness week, the latest on the Ebola outbreak, … and the usual compilation of global health & HPSR publications and other news & analysis.

In this week’s Featured article, Deepika Saluja (IHP resident) dwells on the latest (2018) EV venture in Liverpool, from the point of view of EV facilitators & governance members.

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of this newsletter here: IHPn497 )

Dear Colleagues,

This week’s intro comes from Deepika Saluja (EV 2016), who just started as an IHP resident.

“On 15^th August, when I was about to leave India for my 3-month internship at ITM Antwerp, India’s 72^nd Independence Day was celebrated – the last one for the ruling party (i.e. BJP) before the general elections scheduled in 2019. In his Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the country’s biggest National Health Insurance Scheme ever (Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Abhiyan), dubbed as ‘Modicare’ and renamed multiple times since its first announcement on 1^st February, 2018.

While arriving in Antwerp, I heard the news of the state of Kerala being hit by one of worst floods of the century, killing around 370 and displacing around 1.5 million people from their homes. More than just the nature’s fury, unpreparedness for emergencies like this and unjustified human interventions (35 out of the state’s 42 dams were opened at once for the first time in history) amplified the scale of destruction in the state. While thousands of defense troops along with the Disaster Response team are carrying out the rescue operations, disasters of this scale make me (and many others) wonder about the resilience and responsiveness of our public administrative systems. The CAG audit [the CAG is the supreme audit institution of India] report confirmed none of these dams had an Emergency Action Plan, Operation & Maintenance Manual or a dam-break analysis, and neither was Kerala registered for flood forecasting under the Central Water Commission’s Radar.

In the coming months, during my internship, I will try to link some of these Indian events & trends with the broader global health policy agenda, architecture and paradigms (planetary health, for example). I also hope to cover a few global health events & conferences – among others, the Liverpool symposium on HSR.

Slightly overwhelmed by the amount of information I am processing for the newsletter in the first week of my internship, I am starting to realize the scale of such incidents and disasters and their perpetuating implications on the coming generations. While there seems a lot to be done to improve the situation, what gives hope is to have so many organisations, communities and individuals with shared beliefs and commitment to serve humanity. Dr. Tedros’ first annual letter comes as a reminder that we stand for it together and we will do it. “

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team.

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHP485 )

Dear Colleagues,

With an extended Easter weekend coming up for many of you, we won’t keep you long in this week’s intro. We just hope that, like Jesus managed a few thousand years ago, you can “bounce back” from whatever sorrow and struggles of the past year, and find the inner strength to live as the person you want to be in your best moments, while accepting that you’re human (i.e. not Jesus) and thus sometimes will fail. If that sounds too much like a plea for ‘resilience’ (it isn’t meant to), guess we’ve been too long in this HPSR business already : )

If even Jeff Sachs sounds dystopian these days, time seems to be running out   if we want to make this a fairer and sustainable world. We owe it to future generations to give everything we have. If we still needed a reminder, American youth gave a powerful one last weekend. And in the murky Global Fund & Heineken partnership story, there was also a breakthrough this week, just in time for Easter.

PS: we realize many among you are less into Jesus and more into James Bond, and so we hope you ‘Die Another Day’ on Saturday and then get going again on Sunday, for ‘Health for All’. With or without chocolate eggs. Or Martini    

PS: at the time of writing, this week’s Lancet issue wasn’t yet online. Or perhaps Richard et al already flew into the Martini in London and skip it altogether this week (Easter Friday).

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn463 )

Dear Colleagues,

Not sure you all noticed but this week the International Day of Happiness  was celebrated, a day before Spring officially started in the North. Over the past few days, we came across a number of relevant reads,  learning ever more about happiness and wellbeing. That’s always a nice pastime, you’ll say, but in the interconnected SDG & planetary health era it’s even more important than before, as a global challenge for 7.3 billion people and counting. This year’s World Happiness Report, published last week already provided some insight, with the usual accompanying analyses why Scandinavian countries such as Finland  and Denmark do so well. Readers of this newsletter probably have an idea. It ain’t the weather. Other voices emphasize the urgent need for “wellbeing economies”; chances are it’ll indeed be either ‘wellbeing’ or ‘no-being’ by the end of the 21^st century. Speaking of ‘no-being’, the deeper (and darker) personalities among you who reckon wellbeing is for wussies can perhaps try meditation  to find out the meaning and purpose in life,  while connecting with deeper existential awareness. Trust me: it’ll be better for your soul than checking your Twitter feed every other hour. Nevertheless, on Twitter we wholeheartedly agreed with the slogan “A gender equal world is a happy world”. Can’t be worse than it is now.  Still think also that good old-fashioned sleep remains vastly underrated in global health & wellbeing circles. As a “bold innovative” NCD prevention idea, we should all advocate for an extra day of sleep a week. Can even be organized in the office for the workaholics, in total harmony with a “No Coffee/Enter Paracetamol” day.

Over to the messy world in which we live, then. In Almaty later this year, the Alma Ata Declaration will normally get an update “for a new era” . Health for All 8.0 (including PHC 37.0) if you want. And what a fine new era it is! The new times are characterized by a “pivot to authoritarianism by governments and to cynicism by citizens”, and by an increasing number of interconnected shocks, instability & vulnerabilities on which (more than anyone else) ruthless politicians seem bound to thrive, as is already the case in many countries. It’s mostly men, unfortunately – for the ones among you who want to be ruled by authoritarian women, you can find them in some rather specific settings, we’ve been told.  In any case, the rather dull technocrats and philantro-capitalists who dominated much of the MDG era increasingly feel like relics of a bygone era, even if the latter don’t fully realize it yet, still hopping and “global envoy’-ing” from high-level/trillion dollar forum to forum. In this brave new era, “surveillance capitalism”  is also fast becoming a buzzword. Entire ‘targeted advertising’ business models have been built on the idea that they (i.e. the likes of Google, Facebook, Alibaba…) know what will make you “happy”. Including when it comes to your political preferences. Americans certainly look over the moon now. But Zuckerberg said he’s ‘happy’ to testify before Congress, that should help.

Still in America, last week Richard Horton argued in the ‘Great Equity debate’ in New York that liberty (i.e. enhanced agency) should precede equity, as the defining objective of global health in the 21^st century.  I’m afraid Horton and his opponent, Cheryl Healton (in favour of equity), both got it wrong, or at least need to be complemented. Whether we like it or not, some moderation & rationing, in line with planetary boundaries, will need to come first, if not soon there won’t be a world at all anymore to ‘leave behind’ for future generations. The fact that even many in the global health community still don’t practice what  they preach in this respect, shows that this is, by far, the hardest global/planetary health challenge. We are, as a species, downright pathetic at moderation & rationing, and capitalism ruthlessly exploits that collective weakness. Most, if not all, human beings want more, whether it’s more power, more influence, a bigger network, new experiences, a new love, more abstracts accepted for symposia, more funding for our pet projects, … We all want something (more). In fact, if you don’t want more anymore, you’re probably ready to die.  Rationing & moderation are just not in our DNA, and three decades of neoliberal globalization didn’t really help. Some prefer to call it ‘growing’ instead of wanting ever more or claim they all do it with a view on ‘changing the world for the better’. You wish. Even authoritarian leaders get this. So far Xi Jinping hasn’t exactly been telling his compatriots that the ‘Chinese dream’ – sadly-  includes flying less, for example. And why should he, as long as we – in the West – don’t even change our ways after decades of flying to “wherever we want to lay our heads”?

Put differently, what do you think Horton, Bloomberg and Kickbusch’s level of wellbeing would be if they had to make their grand planetary health/green economy/cosmopolitan cases only in (respectively) London/New York/ Geneva, for the years and decades to come? Via fancy Youtube videos only?

I reckon they’d need a LOT of coffee to get through the day : )

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn462 )

This week’s intro comes from IHP contributor Clara Affun-Adegbulu. Among others, she ponders the somewhat mysterious sounding “Disease X”.

Disease X, Maladie X, Krankheit X… Is this is a multilingual list of illnesses from a  medical sci-fi series based in outer space, or one of Elon Musk’s apocalyptic nightmares? No. It is in fact, the 8^th disease on the WHO’s recently released list of Blueprint priority diseases.

Globalisation, cheap flights and unprecedented levels of human movement mean that new diseases and mutated strains of old ones can spread more easily, rapidly turning local outbreaks into global epidemics. Outbreak preparedness through research and development is vital to containing such epidemics and ensuring global health security. Yet it is clear that focusing only on specific diseases could leave us open to being taken by surprise, by an outbreak of a different disease which may be just as deadly, but requires different responses. It is of course impossible to decide with certainty, which diseases will be causing havoc in any one year, so adding a disease with a placeholder name to the list is a great idea. This should force people to think outside the Blueprint of priority diseases box, and enable the prioritisation of cross-cutting preparedness measures which go beyond the research and development of particular vaccines, to more general but just as important ones like reinforcing health systems and ensuring that they are ready and resilient enough to cope with outbreaks of previously unknown diseases. It also shows that the WHO (and the wider community of global health security experts) have finally decided to be pragmatic and accept the fact that predictions of the diseases which are likely to lead to epidemics are sometimes nothing more than educated guesses.

Educated guesses and increased unpredictability bring us to today’s geopolitical context, where authoritarianism is becoming de rigueur; populism and nationalism are on the rise; wars seem to go on forever; and some leaders act with impunity, not caring one jot about international conventions. In the current climate of international instability, it is becomingly increasingly difficult for the WHO and other global stakeholders to take the lead and act. Navigating an unpredictable, dynamic situation, where everything is changeable and changing is challenging, one could say, borrowing from the WHO’s nomenclature, that we are currently living in a “World X” (the “Allo Allo” fans among you might prefer the term ‘Krank Welt’). The latter feels at least as dangerous as ‘Disease X’ (at least if you’re not Elon Musk and counting on Mars as a way out).

So we now live in a “World X” which is at significant risk of a “Disease X” outbreak, and this requires “Research X” in preparation for a “Response X” which can be scaled up, adapted and deployed quickly, should the need arise. This, as the WHO has recognised, is one of the most effective ways of assuring global health security. But if this starts to sound a bit like the X-files, we don’t blame you.

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn461 )

Last weekend, in a progress report on NCDs, the UN Secretary-General called for a paradigm shift in the approach to NCDs. You’ll read all about it in this newsletter, but let’s start with a suggestion of my own in this regard. As  authoritarianism  is all the rage now, and many countries are having a hell of a time enjoying populist moments  (while counting for their more cosmopolitan moments on Elon Musk), I think it would be good to re-frame the NCDs for the UN High-Level meeting later this year, in line with the new times. As I get older (and grumpier), I also begin to realize that NCDs are actually – together with dying, obviously – one of the rare (fairly) democratic things in life. Sooner or later, NCDs will come and get you. True, the poor are (a lot) more affected, and some people suffer (far) more than others, but still, NCDs are one of the few  equalizers in life (though not in terms of prevention & access to care, unfortunately). So, in the light of all this, how about reframing NCDs as “The People’s Diseases”? That born again Mao in Beijing surely won’t object, and although I have a hunch the NCD Alliance – which would have to be relabeled as “The People’s Diseases Alliance” – might not be entirely happy (some ill-informed people might mix up the People’s Diseases Alliance with the People’s Health Movement ), we think it’d be a nice complement to the overall ‘Health for All’ and UHC battles. Heck, the new framing might also help overcome some of the current political tribalism in many countries, another key ingredient of our times.

International Women’s Day was also celebrated this week. This newsletter features an editorial by Sana Contractor & Sara Van Belle on the new Global Health 50/50 report, launched in London on Thursday. Women will always have the only power that really matters in this world, to love or not to love, but arguably, that doesn’t offer much consolation in the important global battle for gender equality where so much still needs to be done around the globe, with many horrors done to women on a daily basis. As long as women and girls leave countries because they feel their country fails them, all men in this world should feel utterly ashamed of themselves. Many more women don’t even have that option.

On a more encouraging note, the Gates Foundation, clearly seeing the light more and more in a number of areas, launched its first ever gender equality strategy this week. DFID also published its Strategic vision for gender equality. Strategic vision & the UK don’t rhyme very well these days, you’ll say, but well worth a read. More in general, as UNAIDS’ Sidibé noted,   “… change is happening. This year, International Women’s Day is being celebrated at a time when there is a much-needed spotlight on issues of sexual harassment across multiple sectors, including the private sector, governments, international organizations and civil society.” The UN (via SG Guterres) had a similar uplifting message – The ‘time is now’ to transform the global push for women’s rights into action, arguing that “International Women’s Day comes at a pivotal moment, and with a wave of women’s activism – from the #MeToo movement to #TimesUp and beyond – exposing the structures that have allowed women’s oppression to flourish.”

Elsewhere, in Cape Town, at the 17^th World conference on Tobacco or Health, Bloomberg Philantropies launched STOP, a global tobacco watchdog. Derek Yach had to hang out on the Cape Town shores as he was not allowed in, having “moved to the dark side”.

Now we still need a similar initiative to STOP our destructive economic & financial system. Not counting on Bloomberg for that one.  On Peter Sands we count even less, after reading about his plans for the Global Fund in this week’s Lancet issue.

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn460s )

Dear Colleagues,

The Launch of Nursing Now was – at least for this newsletter – the main news of the week. With a few nurses in my family I have a fairly good idea of why this movement is so crucial, across the whole world. I hope that from now on, among other things, nurses and midwives will also be heavily represented in global health decision making circles. For every Tim Evans, we need (at least) four nurses at high-level breakfasts, WEF pandemic simulations and the like.

Like many of you, I also learnt this week about the “polar vortex”, which is not what it used to be – by the way, whoever came up with ITM’s ‘Switching the Poles’ slogan must have had Nostradamus among his/her ancestors : )  The Belt & Road Initiative  keeps changing names, but my vote goes from now on to  “One Belt, One Road, One Leader”. It’s all with a view on “ensuring that people live happier lives”, apparently. If you are not really into the “benevolent enlightened authoritarian leadership” idea, global health implications (and the dangers of playing too much the Chinese card in the years to come) seem  obvious, though.

In London, another Global Health Lab  took place, focusing on the question: “does global health really care about the planet?” Unfortunately, these labs are still not livestreamed, a real pity as they usually concern key questions for our times.  As somebody put it on Twitter, a clear definition of ‘really care’ seemed indispensable for this debate.  I couldn’t follow the debate behind my laptop, but would have loved to know the answer. A calculated guess: global health cares a bit, but not nearly enough, and certainly not when it comes to taking difficult decisions in our own professional lives. Still, awareness on the dire state of the planet has increased a lot in the past ten years, also in the global health community (see ‘planetary health’), and is certainly far more present than global health awareness on the horror that so called ‘disruptive companies’ like Amazon inflict in social and ecological terms. For some reason, the latter doesn’t really sink in. Maybe an idea for a future Global Health Lab in London?

Meanwhile, the commotion around sexual abuse in (and by) the aid sector, and backlash against aid, sparked by the Oxfam scandal about two weeks ago now, reached some other high-profile organisations  like Save the Children & UNAIDS, over the weekend. The truth in this (by now really sad) story lies somewhere between Clare Short’s assessment, who  “Attack[ed] ‘Hysterical’ Media Coverage Of Oxfam Scandal And Claim[ed] Entire Aid Sector ‘Smeared’ and Kevin Watkins’s quote, that “aid faces its 2008 financial crisis moment”. Clare Short nailed it in many ways, but we still lean towards the latter view (also captured, in a different way, by Michael Edwards in “It’s time to take our charities to the cleaners”). Having said that, Kevin Watkins will surely agree with us that in the 2008 financial crisis some banks and countries were definitely more hit/affected than others. That seems to be no different this time. The most repulsive news from this week concerned the “boys’ culture” (or worse) at Save the Children and UNAIDS, and, of course, and very sadly, the horrific link between humanitarian aid and sexual exploitation in Syria, as reported by BBC this week.

A short reflection, perhaps, to conclude this week’s intro. As this debate hits a raw nerve for most people for obvious reasons, people tend to come in with their own world view and lens, …  which is fine, but also has the risk that people start (over)interpreting and reading what they want to read in pieces, or at least between the lines, even in somewhat freewheeling blogs. In a way, you can compare this to how I – in a very different debate – tend to dream of a new socio-ecological economy, full of solidarity and altruism, someday, far removed from the harsh neoliberal system we have now. Whenever I, with this (I’m afraid, somewhat utopian) world view lurking in the background, come across articles on, say, PPPs or PBF, I also find it really hard to read them for what they’re worth, and refrain from reading ‘between the lines’. It’s almost impossible to shed my own bias (or perhaps more accurately, “lens”, on how the world should be (instead)). I have the feeling that in the #MeToo movement, a very necessary global movement of which I hope it will have ramifications and lead to substantial reform everywhere and in every sector, at least some men feel reluctant to engage in the debate, or self-censor themselves. That is surely not what women want, I’d imagine.

Finally, for the youngsters among you, we hope by now you have your abstracts, Cvs, motivation letters, … ready for the EV call for Liverpool. Deadline:  Monday 5 march!

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn459 )

Dear Colleagues,

The Oxfam abuse scandal is triggering a thorough investigation into how things can be improved for the better, both in terms of protecting staff and changing the aid sector “culture” on the ground, towards often very vulnerable women and children. Overdue and very necessary, but it won’t be easy, as the problems are rooted in power dynamics and many other things that aren’t easy to change.  Analysis of how Oxfam and others also need to change in a broader sense, to adjust to changing times, is also  taking place.  All this is certainly a good outcome of the commotion, even if by now commentators like Ann Pettifor have made a (not entirely unlikely)  link with the Brexit debate – instead of ‘global citizens’ we will soon all become conspiracy theory adepts, which says a lot about the dark times we live in. In any case, we hope that the UK & US government, and the European Commission, will from now on also be “ultra-fast” in their response to future investigative journalism papers on offshore & other dodgy “tax optimization” constructions, maintaining “the highest moral standards” in these areas & sectors as well.  The UK government is certainly ultra-fast when it comes to reinstating secretive slush funds like the ‘Conflict, Stability and Security Fund’, assisting some of the less savory regimes in this world in “maintaining stability”.

Over to NCDs then. Last week, all members were announced of the “WHO Independent Global High-level Commission on NCDs”, “comprising heads of state and ministers, leaders in health and development and entrepreneurs.”  In a letter, Baby Milk Action/IBFAN UK raised conflict of interest concerns on Arnaud Bernaert (WEF); Dr Sania Nishtar (co-chair) and Katie Dain of the NCD Alliance.  Some we find more worrying than others, but the letter is certainly worth reading.  We also have a few of our own concerns. By now you know we’re not exactly big fans of Michael Bloomberg, but apparently the guy is a fixture in NCD High-Level circles nowadays. And what on earth is Jack Ma doing in this high-level Commission? I know he’s made quite an impression in Davos, but can you imagine what we would say if Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos were included? I’d personally like to see a couple of PHM people included, to get some more balance in this global HL Commission. After all, the aim is to propose “bold and innovative solutions to accelerate prevention and control of NCDs”. Bet they can think of a few. Maybe we can also add The Donald, to arm all McDonald’s staff so that every time you’re in the mood for a cheese burger, you risk to get shot if you make the wrong move.

Meanwhile, from what we hear on the Alma Ata 40^th anniversary preparations, a serious attempt will be made to “resuscitate PHC”  this year – for the evangelicals among you, you are allowed to call it a ‘Second Coming’.  In an interview with CNN, Bill Gates acknowledged he needs to pay higher taxes.   Don’t hear him much about the Giving Pledge these days. Progress! Meanwhile, his key staff at the Foundation also answered some ‘tough questions’ this week, following the lead of Bill & Melinda in their annual letter. Next week, I also count on them to declare solemnly that they pay too few taxes.

This week’s issue features two short editorials, one by Sameera Hussain (reflecting on the 13^th GPW of WHO from a health SDG angle) and another one by my colleague Willem van de Put on the Oxfam abuse scandal. Willem is almost sixty – although he has the drive of a 20-year old guy – and has quite some aid sector experience.

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn458 )

Dear Colleagues,

The commotion around the Global Fund’s disturbing partnerships continued over the weekend, among others with a hard-hitting  viewpoint in the Lancet, but then the Oxfam scandal (and its ripple effect) took over the “limelight”. It’s clear the aid sector (which includes the UN architecture) is now facing its own #MeToo moment, long overdue, as some of these practices have been around for a very long time, rooted in power dynamics, (post-)colonialist attitudes or downright “male pig” behaviour. Among others.

Arguably, as psychologists will be keen to tell you, many of us have at least some traces of an inner Caligula, Bacchus or Cleopatra – I admit, the latter not exactly in the same league as the former – buried deep down, or other dark/dodgy demons routinely swept under the (more or less subconscious) mat, having been disciplined as neoliberal/decent citizens. But even taking this into  account, the uproar on the organized debauchery & sexual exploitation of vulnerable people is more than warranted. The need for drastic (structural) reform of (part of) the aid sector in this respect is thus urgent (as for example Owen Barder suggested in a spot-on thread of tweets), even if evidently some political actors in the UK and elsewhere are now snowboarding like Shaun White on the scandal to do away with aid and the idea of global solidarity altogether. For once,  “draining the swamp”   thus seems the right thing to do. Unlike in US politics, the early signs of a strong reaction by the aid sector don’t look bad. And to cheer up the people working at Oxfam, we re-post Jonathan Glennie’s tweet here: “ To all the brilliant people @Oxfam, you work for one of the world’s most wonderful organisations. Serious mistakes were made – let’s learn and change. Oxfam will emerge stronger and so will the sector. It’s a chance to refind and renew ourselves. Wishing you strength and belief.” Sums it up nicely.

From Caligula to Bill Gates is a rather big leap, I admit, even for this newsletter. Bill & Melinda published their (10^th) annual letter this week, answering 10 of the toughest questions asked to them over the years. Preparations for the 40^th anniversary of Alma Ata have also started, Richard Horton paid a visit to that other pope in Rome to kickstart a new Lancet Commission, The Donald’s new budget request is as worrying as always, and we also pay some attention to the “Agenda 2030 for Children: End Violence Solutions Summit” in Stockholm.  On Valentine’s Day, the day of ‘old, new and never meant to be’ partnerships, another Big Alcohol representative, AB Inbev’s CEO, informed the world he’s going to help ensure “Safer Roads for All Through the Power of Partnerships” (no kidding), together with the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). There was also remarkable news from Ethiopia, where the prime minister resigned, and last but not least, as you no doubt know already, Zuma is no longer in charge in South Africa. Feels good to end this week’s intro on a positive ‘drain the swamp’ note : )

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn457 )

Dear Colleagues,

I’m afraid it’ll be a makeshift IHP newsletter this week, as I’ve just moved house and – in the words of this week’s editorialist, Clara Affun-Adegbulu,  moving house seems to “have affected my body & soul”. Not sure what she meant by that (as my soul is probably doomed anyhow), but as my colleague Remco chuckled, “one really shouldn’t replant old trees”.  That I can confirm now.

So before getting to this week’s IHP news & publications, I’ll just mention a few facts & figures for the many diehard sports fans among you (thx to my Twitter feed).  “Shocking fact of the morning from @owenbarder – the @WHO annual budget to cope with a global flu outbreak is smaller than the university of Michigan’s football coach salary.”  Another one, for the many admirers of Kevin Debruyne & Vincent Kompany: “Manchester City’s annual defence spending now exceeds that of 52 actual countries”. Clearly, humanity is (still) getting its priorities right. After all, Manchester City needs a strong defence.

Against this backdrop, next time there’s a huge outbreak (let alone a global pandemic), I’d suggest the WHO communication team tries out a new approach, specifically for citizens in richer countries: instead of rather dull press conferences on the state of affairs on the outbreak, why not go for some teasing tweets by Dr Tedros (“TTTs”) himself, under the motto ‘never waste a good crisis’?

In the morning, he would tweet for example: “The health contingency fund, sadly, is empty once again. The world could have paid for it if Neymar actually had been taxed just 0.01 % more. We, at WHO, totally understand that, though. Neymar is a lot more fun to watch than Ebola.”  In the afternoon: “Corpses are piling up in New York due to the latest outbreak. Shit happens if you fund basketball stars and hedge fund managers better than global health security.”   And a late evening tweet, also targeting American citizens: “Hey guys, we have another pandemic heading for mankind. Judging from your country’s budget, it appears the US will nuke the germs coming in our direction, and give the rest of them a royal tax cut. But at least you’ll have tanks on the streets for your Washington Parade!”   Etc.

If I understand well, Dr Tedros & team are aiming for  “innovative resource mobilization strategies” to finance the 13^th GPW.  So here you go.  

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn456 )

Dear Colleagues,

In this week’s issue we are still a bit recovering from the “Swiss” global health week, with some more analysis & reflections on both WHO’s EB142 meeting and Davos. Ben Phillips (Fight Inequality Alliance) came up with the best final assessment of the latter  : “…Davos is over. This is not merely to say that the private helicopters have taken their charges back to private airstrips for their onward journey home. This year, 2018, was the nail in the coffin for the idea that Davos could change the world. … … The Davos Forum is a “speed-dating club for plutocrats and politicians”. … But the idea that it will be a force for a more equal society is dead”.  Keeping this in mind, we suggest that, from now on, the global health community only dispatches Bill Gates (the one philantrocapitalist for which we have a lot of respect), Peter Sands and Jim Kim (Jim is a must given his recent private equity crush) to Davos. The rest of us better boycott Davos, in case we’re “lucky” enough to get an invitation. The way WEF organizer Klaus Schwab described how Trump had been “misinterpreted”  (like other CEOs  shamelessly kowtowing to The Donald) and applauded his tax cuts made it clear that the WEF’s emperor has no longer any clothes – pro-rich tax cuts & UHC/equity don’t rhyme very well. Well, it’s probably for a reason that Switzerland still tops the list  of promotors of financial secrecy, with the US a close second.  So dear Seth, Tedros, Peter P (not Pan) and other Ilona’s, if you are concerned about global health, planetary health and global equality (and we’re 100 % sure you are), you’d better go to the 4th People’s Health Assembly in Bangladesh, in November.  To prepare properly, read the Global Health Watch 5. And Das Kapital.

Also news from Davos, but with perhaps more immediate relevance was the way the Global Fund enthusiastically engaged in new PPPs with the likes of Heineken,  Coca Cola et al. We certainly hope Peter Sands and his Fund will get the same ‘treatment’ as the one that tends to be reserved for WHO when the organization finds itself in muddy waters. More on the (mainly Twitter) commotion so far in this newsletter. Still in Davos, Google’s CEO reckoned  “Artificial Intelligence will be bigger than electricity or fire”. In Cape Town, they probably think, that’s all nice and well, but better then to come up with AI that can produce water as well. If that doesn’t work out, as we would say in Belgium, they can always drink Heineken in Cape Town.

In this newsletter we’ll also cover PMAC 2018 (still ongoing) in Bangkok, the African Union summit from last weekend in Addis, and some of the key publications of the week, with plenty of goodies from the Lancet, among others.

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn455 )

Dear Colleagues,

I don’t know about you, but every year I get a bit more annoyed by the abundant(ly cheap) Davos talk about inequality and the “urgent need” to do something about it. Hearing the likes of Lagarde et al  call for more inclusive societies at this – by now strongly delegitimized –  “multi-stakeholder” forum   feels increasingly like an Orwellian newspeak joke, as we hear the same message year after year, more or less in sync with the annual Oxfam reports on global inequality published ahead of the WEF.  (PS: This year’s Oxfam was well received, by the way, also by former (methodological) critics. )

Sometimes quotes say even more than killer stats. This quote (by Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International) tells you all you need to know about our sick system and why a forum like Davos feels by now as morally bankrupt as hell: “…Oxfam has spoken to women across the world whose lives are blighted by inequality. Women in Vietnamese garment factories who work far from home for poverty pay and don’t get to see their children for months at a time. Women working in the US poultry industry who are forced to wear nappies because they are denied toilet breaks…”.  Yes, Ms Lagarde & co, that’s the system of which IMF again applauded the “acceleration of growth”, even if she added “We are not satisfied,”  because “too many people have been left out of the acceleration of growth”.   Indeed, they are wearing nappies, Christine. For the sake of “accelerated growth”, I guess.   So if Justin Trudeau calls upon the world “to put women first”, as he did at this year’s World Economic Forum, I’d suggest to start with these women. Among others. Alternatively, I suggest Davos men do a couple of shifts in these poultry factories, nappies included. Should boost their ‘agile governance’ skills.

By all means, if pharma companies & philantrocapitalists can come up in Davos with innovative partnerships to tackle “market failures”, find more ways to tackle AMR, or want to run pandemic exercises, please (let them) do so, I’m sure many of their efforts actually make sense and are important, but spare us this empty talk on inclusive economies. I just can’t hear this CR**  anymore –  already anticipating Trump’s speech later today here – from Davos men & women. At the time of writing this intro, it wasn’t clear yet whether Dr Tedros would go to Davos or stay at WHO’s EB142 meeting, but it looked as if he was going to favor the critical discussions taking place in Geneva. For our take on this, written over the weekend, see “A question for Dr. Tedros and other global health leaders ahead of Davos”. Hope it’ll at least become a bit less evident for global health leaders (not just Tedros) to join the Davos crowd in the years to come.

PS: We came across a (somewhat odd sounding) new term, by the way, this week. Instead of facing a ‘cosmopolitan moment’, it appears we are living through a wider “capisceptic moment”:     more and more people are sceptic about the many blessings of capitalism, certainly in the North.  Probably sensing that sooner or later, they’ll also end up wearing nappies for the sake of some corporate “entrepreneur”.  

In this newsletter, besides covering (and ranting about) Davos we will of course also pay attention to WHO’s EB142. In Premier League terms, pretty much the first “Big Game” for Dr. Tedros vs donors & member states. Thankfully he ain’t paid like Kevin Debruyne or Alexis Sanchez : )    But that’s stuff for another intro, some other time!  

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn454 )

This week’s intro was written by Latin American IHP contributor & EV alumna Elena Vargas. She reflects on the letter by Deneuve et al in Le Monde, last week.  

“The new year started in a rather polemic way for the gender equality struggle in the “post-Weinstein” era. As most of us have read in the papers or on different social media platforms, 100 French (and a few Belgian) women signed an open letter published in Le Monde, expressing their view on the recent wave of sexual misconduct accusations of male celebrities and powerful men in the show business industry, and beyond. The signatories of the letter criticized the #MeToo movement for its alleged puritanism, for favoring the return to a Victorian moral order and threatening the sexual revolution heritage, as well as qualifying it as a witch hunt and man hating. The letter caused a backlash, naturally, but whether we like it or not, this manifesto represents an alternative perspective in the debate. It’s important to acknowledge, however, that both positions/campaigns also have an impact on other settings, where the reality of women differs – often, a lot – from the ones currently heading both “camps” in the North. For instance, I can assure that the way men `hit on` women in Europe might be very different from the way it’s done in Latin America. Last week, one of my male Nicaraguan colleagues asked me if men flirt the same way in Belgium as they do it here. “You know what I mean, he added…” He was actually referring to catcalling. Coincidentally with the #MeToo movement, we also saw a rising number of public rape accusations against men, through social media. But here, unlike in the US, a woman who dared to denounce her rapist was instead taken to court for defamation. And, in one of our latest cases of femicide, the murderer was actually praised for being a “good man”, while the woman had her intimate life exposed by the media and was vilified for being an “easy” woman. So, just like Deneuve, Miller et al. don’t feel represented by the feminism of the #MeToo movement, some of us are left with the feeling that they might live in a parallel universe where “male domination does not exist”, where “there is nothing wrong with stealing a kiss from a woman” and where there will soon be a totalitarian society of rampant censorship. Yet, at the same time, we understand their concern for the effect moralism can have in various aspects of our lives.”

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the full newsletter here: IHPn453 )

I was going to write something about Oprah Winfrey and Cathérine Deneuve in this week’s intro – both strong and courageous women in my opinion, the first one for (forcefully) opening up and broadening the #MeToo debate to the non-middle class/cultural elite ranks in society, the other one for trying to bring a bit more sense & sensibility in this (sometimes too sterile & polarizing) debate. (On Deneuve I’m well aware  not everybody agrees).  But as this is a minefield for the average bloke to wander into (ask Matt Damon), I better leave this debate to a stable genius of sorts.  In any case, I hope on both accounts substantial progress will be made in the years and decades to come, as this movement will only gain further momentum, and rightfully so – see for example China  – “China’s women break silence on harassment as #MeToo becomes #WoYeShi” .  This is a very context-specific debate, though, in terms of power differences, cultural challenges, generational aspects … and so it’s good to read views from all corners in society, and all corners of the globe.  And then act upon them.  

Speaking of stable geniuses, Bill Gates explained at the JP Morgan Annual Global Health forum how the private sector can and should profit  from public health. (Even more than already is the case, ahum : ) ) As stable geniuses tend to do, he did say a few very sensible things, even if the private sector will no doubt continue to make stable bucks if Bill & his JP Morgan friends get their way.  Another stable genius, Stephen Hawking, reiterated that we’re on our way to Venus, if we don’t manage to cut greenhouse emissions (sufficiently/timely). Still, his blaming of Trump (on pulling out of the Paris Agreement) lets us, fickle global citizens,  a bit too easily off the hook. Instead, at “braais” & on budget flights, we’d better all merrily sing together, “I’m your Venus!”  Maybe at the Liverpool symposium, Lucy Gilson – another stable (though also slightly hyperdynamic) genius – can take the lead, as a meta-governor of the HPSR crowd. (#planetaryhealthsession)

Pope Francis, a stable spiritual genius, we presume, came up with his own view on how to make the world a better place in 2018. Interestingly, besides the need for affordable health care and medicines for all, he also  pointed to the threat of technological advances that may put millions of people, especially the poorest, out of work. Millions and millions of people risk undergoing the Fire and Fury of Artificial Intelligence, further automation, robotization, and the like. A world of ( more or less capable) plutocrat populists and a vast precariat (or worse) could be in the making, if we’re not careful and change the priorities of/in our system. (Side note: as you recall, in the old days, people routinely ignored prophets. They still do. At least in that respect, humans are fairly stable mammals.)

Fortunately, in Belgium, a “Don’t complain for 30 days” campaign is about to kick off, which presumably will boost the wellbeing of many in this small country. Don’t know whether it’d be a good idea for global health watchers too, with WHO’s EB142 meeting coming up, and WHO (incl. Tedros) again under scrutiny in the weeks to come… Richard, what do you say?  

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn452 )

Welcome to the new year! Whether ours is now a world in “geopolitical recession”, “geopolitical depression”, or just a political madhouse at last fully in sync with our wacko economic system, in any case the New Year has started off in style. We now – finally! – know who has the biggest nuclear button  on his desk, and it even works. A huge relief.   As Ian Bremmer put it, in Eurasia’s (must-read)  risk analysis for the coming year, “…After nearly a decade of a slowly destabilizing G-Zero framework, the election of Donald Trump as president in the US has accelerated the descent into a Hobbesian state of international politics”. Not sure The Donald knows who Hobbes is, but that will indeed probably be the backdrop for global health and the SDG agenda in the years to come, at least as long as our economic system is not fundamentally changed and the outrageous inequality that goes with it, tackled at all levels. Increasingly counting on the aliens for that one.

Nevertheless, we hope you had a great end of the year, and a few nice New Year’s resolutions ready for 2018.  As you know, old people tend to wish one another “a good health, as that’s the most important”, and they’re damned right. As we occasionally feel old & grumpy ( the weather doesn’t help at this time of the year), we happily align ourselves with this New Year mantra of the old & wise. So if you want to contribute to global (let alone planetary) health this year, while doing so, try to keep an eye also on your own physical, mental & spiritual health. True, not an easy feat in our insane world, but the NYT already listed a few good options to boost your (healthy) chances a bit, see “8 Easy, Meaningful New Year’s Resolutions for Better Health”.     Foucault fans who aren’t too enchanted with ‘healthism’ will probably prefer another read,  Are your health resolutions really a free choice?  (in The Conversation).  As an exemplary “biocitizen”, I already managed to refrain from most of the (20) spicy hot wings in a KFC outlet earlier this week, a #bucketchallenge of sorts :). 

But there are many other valid and probably more important New Year’s resolutions for the global health community. On gender & global health governance, for example,  Dr. Tedros tweeted, reacting to a tweet by Ilona “I was born (and will probably die) a feminist” Kickbusch:   “… If we don’t have honest commitment, declarations don’t help. We have too many declarations and resolutions. Change of mindset, real commitment and action is what we need. @WHO our new year resolution is to act with the right mindset & challenge status quo #Women2018”.   Sounds good to me.

Before you delve into the first IHP newsletter of the year, let us wish you the best of luck with your own New Year’s resolutions in 2018!  But keep in mind, even in a jungle, deadlines matter. Ask the cute little animals.

Enjoy your reading.

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn451 )

As was the case in the past few years, we would like to draw upon 2 interns from the Global South to help us in this respect. The interns will be expected to join the IHP team for a 3-month period, most probably one in the first half of 2018, the other one in the second half. Interns will be based in Antwerp, Belgium, for three months. Besides IHP related work, they can also take part in other health policy unit meetings, classes & activities.

For more info on IHP (network, newsletter & blogs), see the website: http://www.internationalhealthpolicies.org/

Your contribution

Interns will, among others, help with:

• The weekly compilation of global health policy, HPSR & global governance news & articles
• (Co-) Writing editorials and blogs
• The weekly listings in the newsletter
• Polishing & finetuning of IHP blogs (from other authors)

Interns will also cover at least one global health event (for example, the World Health Assembly, the World Health Summit, the Liverpool HSR symposium, another conference, …)

Applicants should:

• Be an EV alumnus (from any cohort – 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2016) OR a health journalist with focus on health policies & health systems (incl. research).
• Have good writing skills (in English)
• Have a strong health policy & systems research background (with a general interest in global & planetary health)
• Be from the Global South (i.e. nationality from the South )

(cfr: to give you an idea, interns from the past few years were from Uganda, India, Guatemala & Nigeria)

If interested, send

• your CV (max. 3 pages)
• a motivation letter (maximum 500 words) – mention also which period you’d prefer for your internship.

to adepotter@itg.be    by January 15 at the latest.

As you know, this newsletter follows global health (related) policies, politics, governance, crises and humanitarian suffering (among others), on a weekly basis. With a focus on politics, policies and power (PPP), It will come as no surprise that sometimes, towards the end of the week usually, the sheer compilation of all this information can induce a rather dark mood. So yes, on Friday morning, when the newsletter is being sent out ( and I crave for Sleeping Beauty’s quality of sleep), my world view and view on human beings can be a bit grim, having again come across so much dirt and nastiness in the world, often inflicted by human beings themselves, either directly or indirectly (read: “tax optimization”, “budget priorities”, …). If that wasn’t the case, I guess we wouldn’t so often come across revolting headlines like “Half the world lacks access to essential health services”, in a world as rich as ours. Still, if the intro is sometimes a bit too wry to your taste, sorry.  

Against that backdrop, it was heartwarming to read a story last week (in a Belgian newspaper) about ordinary people who do make a difference in their personal lives: last year, some of my Belgian compatriots just did what needed to be done, without much ado, and (temporarily) adopted refugee children, while their families were still somewhere stuck in camps in Greece (or worse). When some of these children were then reunited with their mom, these mothers were very very grateful to the stand-in parents who had taken care of their children while they were still trying to get through the cold gates of Europe. These Belgian citizens knew it was just the right thing to do, nobody had to tell them. There are many stories like that as well, even if we don’t often (enough) select them for this newsletter.

At the end of the year, when it’s cold and dark outside (it’s winter here in Europe), somehow you have to believe that the good will eventually prevail, like in Star Wars. Yes, as soon as you don’t believe in Santa anymore, you know that’s often not the case in the real world, but it’s still the best “working hypothesis” we have to keep going in this world, trying to make it a better place for people around the globe and the generations that come after us.

Merry Christmas & see you all in 2018!

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of this week here: IHPn450 )

This was probably the last ‘crazy’ week in global health before the Christmas holiday season, with among others the 2^nd global NCD Alliance Forum (in the UAE),  UHC Day (12 December) and the UHC Forum in Tokyo (starring among others, Stefan Peterson, from now on better known as  ‘UHC’s karaoke man’). Also on Tuesday,  the ‘One Ego, One Planet’ summit took place in Paris (starring Jupiter of course, but also some of the usual suspects like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Richard “stop me before I jot down a four-letter word here” Branson).

Obviously, there are also plenty of reads to digest while preparing for the Christmas turkey. Correction:  with international investors increasingly getting worried about the future of meat (and the likelihood of a meat tax sooner rather than later), you should probably refrain from turkey altogether this year. Unsurprisingly, in the progressive ‘planetary health’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ community, there seems to a lot more appetite for this future meat tax than for limiting our own ‘happy flying’ behavior. Nevertheless, the future for the planet looks brighter and brighter, now that the “first planetary health professor” has been appointed, Tony Capon. In Sydney, of all places. Thought these Aussies liked a good piece of meat.

Meanwhile, it turns out that half the world lacks access to essential health services. Not really surprising, perhaps, but still, yet another “killer stat”, literally, to be added to Oxfam’s notorious figures on global inequality.  At some point you can’t escape the question whether the ‘system is broken’ (Jim Kim) or whether our global system has always  been crooked in the first place. My bitcoin goes more and more to the latter. Unfortunately,  though, we are “the system”.  Or if you want it cheesier, “We are the world, we are the children…” (Michael Jackson).  So I tend to agree with historian Philipp Blom when he says  that we (urgently) need a system in which people can live realistically, which implies that we should be able to integrate all the selfish, imperfect and emotional aspects common to all human beings, in the system, while keeping it sustainable for future generations.  A tall order.

Enough said. To make up for the abovementioned turkey, we offer you two editorials this week. Button Ricarte ( ITM health policy intern) gives his take on a UHC Day-related event in Brussels, whereas Mit Philips (MSF) comments on the Tokyo UHC Forum.

Enjoy your reading.

The editorial team

(you find the pdf of the newsletter here: IHPn449 )