No time for a lengthy blog post on the latest World Health Summit in Berlin, which I just attended. And plenty of participants will no doubt reflect on their WHS experience in the coming days, or  have already done so.  So in a more or less chronological order, just a few short comments – before I hop back on the Deutsche Bahn later this morning. Based, obviously, on a very fragmentary view from the conference, themed this year  “From Crisis to Resilience: Innovating for Health “. Mostly based on the keynotes I attended and the pillar I focused on, ‘global health architecture and reform’.

• First things first. You know you’re at a global health conference when panelists’ pronunciation of ‘Bundibugyo’ is impeccable. Or, at the WHS, rolls out of people’s mouths as flawlessly as ‘public-private partnerships & philantropy’.  Panelists should also master the art of saying things three times, for maximum impact, as in: ‘Speed, speed, speed’.
• The stampede to get into the WHO DG candidate forum on Sunday was inversely proportional to what we got to hear from the candidates. Bit of an underwhelming affair, the debate – and it wasn’t due to the moderator (Björn “Suits” Kümmel tried his utmost to make the interviews animated, even using some sort of lottery system for the questions).  We don’t need an (organization) ‘saviour’, perhaps, in the words of Campbell & Clark in a recent BMJ article, but a bit more than what was on display is still more than welcome, I felt. Let’s hope they just weren’t very well prepared (which seemed the case for quite a few). And of course, three contenders weren’t there.
• The Lancet Commission on 21st century global threats to health  was an intellectual highlight (even if there are rather big methodological concerns around the estimate of the climate threat  in the report). Julio Frenk’s wise words on the major contrast between the last (hopeful) quarter of the previous century, and the first quarter of this one, with many trends going in the wrong direction (again), struck a chord with me. It’s tragic indeed, most of all for people who are young now. I’m less convinced than he (and most authors of the report) seemed to be that we can turn things around in the coming decades of this century. But this is of course the World Health Summit – most panelists routinely end on a hopeful note, or even claiming ‘they’re optimistic’. Well, perhaps on the “innovations” front : )   
• Still on the Lancet Commission, I do like the number (“17 threats”, given that my birthday also falls on the 17^th : )). And increasingly, the discourse seems to move from ‘resilient health systems’ to ‘threat-ready health systems’  (youth will be thankful for that, no doubt).
• In the keynote session on ‘Resilience in health care: Experience from Ukraine and other Crisis contexts’ , in addition to some powerful testimonies from Ukraine’s Minister of Health (thanks to a wonderful translator), I’ll remember moderator Katri Bertram bringing up ‘Gaza’ towards the end, and even ‘the right to health’ – quite remarkable in an event largely obsessed by health security & innovations.  Of course, the panelist from the European Commission then routinely avoided difficult political questions on Gaza, going instead for safe ‘humanitarian & health emergency’ answers.  But Bertram going slightly rogue (at least in a German high-profile setting) goes to the heart of the matter. If Germany (or the EU, for that matter) is really serious about the merits of ‘multilateralism’ and a ‘rights-based order’, then the blatant double standards they’ve displayed in recent years (and continue to display), should be shed sooner rather than later. Else you turn your case into a mockery. With, sadly, the brave Ukraine people as some of the casualties of that as well. Germany and other Von der Leyen’s will be a lot more convincing if at last they begin to show some consistency.
• By the way, if you say you believe in multilateralism & liberal democracy (as we do over here in Europe),  heavily scripted sessions    (without much civil society & activist involvement) are more than just a missed opportunity. (PS: some representatives from industry still felt their concerns aren’t heard enough : ) ) Rigid formats lead to not too intellectually stimulating discussions as well.  In too many sessions we heard ‘we don’t have time for debate, or ‘the format doesn’t allow for it’, or even (in a Monday afternoon session on the ‘EU and global health’ (mind you!), “the logistics don’t allow for it” (M McKee, moderator).    I’m sure they like that one in Zhongnanhai.    Instead, class-act moderator Sy showed how it can be done in a keynote session on Tuesday (on global health architecture reform), inviting a thorough Q&A, after giving the audience some time to “meditate” first (on possible questions). Was best practice, and should be mainstreamed throughout the conference. Well, at least as long as the AfD hasn’t taken over the reins in the country.
• In a  civil society ‘counter event’   on Monday afternoon in a nearby hotel, Andreas Wulf set the scene differently, bluntly starting from ‘our world in a mess’. Still, panelist Unni Karunakara (in ‘cockroach movement’ spirit & outfit ! ), and some others, pointed out this is also a ‘moment for decolonization’. Which ‘starts by saying no’, he argued. True, but others felt that many countries are often not in a position to say no…  (as we can see for example in many of the bilateral health agreements between the US and African countries).
• As is his habit, Jean Kaseya was ‘talking tough’, but some other African public health leaders made an impression as well, including the WHO Afro boss and new CEPI lead.
• The “Signature event” on Monday evening I intend to skip in the future. Frankly, it’s not good for my mental health, as well as sparking existential questions like “what on earth am I doing in global health’ : )  Glitzy affair, light on politics, very philanthropy and innovation-friendly … Getting too old for that bullshit. But at least the music from the orchestra was lively. And we got to see a stern looking Merz in the short opening video. Which, i guess, is his routine facial expression.

There’s a lot more to say, of course, among others on the Accra Reset that does provide some real hope these days, far beyond Berlin corridors. It’s ‘a different mindset’ now, even the ‘beginning of a movement’, as mentioned by Peter Piot, Catherine Kyobutungi and others in an event Tuesday afternoon. Diagnostics seem to have their momentum now, and for the first time some discussions also dwelled on new AI philanthropy in global health (Peter Sands, largely in favour of the newbies, showed again why perhaps we don’t need another banker in global health).  I’m personally not too attracted by a future whereby governments increasingly spend on defense, and philanthropy becomes even more dominant than it already is in global health ( in the same panel, J-A Rottingen estimated the contribution of philanthropy in external health financing could go from 5 % to 10 % overall, given current trends).  Overall, and in spite of the Lancet Commission launched here, the WHS is still too much about addressing ‘market failures’ – not quite sure that captures the challenges of the metacrisis we’re currently facing.

Oh, and yes, I fully concur with Katri Bertram’s analysis  on the rather huge contrast between the ‘suits in suites’ (on the second floor) and ‘students in lecture halls’ on the ground floor. A contrast which seems to get worse every year, and led a German colleague of mine to quip: at the Intercontinental, “the groundfloor is for the kids and the adults you can find above, just like in Ikea.”   (ps: whereby both of us also didn’t get invited to “the adults”, by the way –  in spite of my already advanced age : )).  So looking forward to some insight (via a blog by a few ‘adults’?) on the “lounge decision making” upstairs.

Finally, of course, the WHS is also a great opportunity to meet old friends and colleagues (among others  co-members of the Geneva Health Files editorial board ) and make new ones. Always interesting by the way how people perceive the WHS – whether they’re first-time participants or not.