2026-04-07: World Health Day launches science campaign

**The conversation:** Casey Liberty raised concerns about the World Health Organization's (WHO) new campaign “Together for health. Stand with science,” arguing that re-engaging with the WHO could lead to higher taxes and job losses in biotech. He emphasized the need to prioritize American jobs and local budgets over international commitments. Sam Balance acknowledged the immediate financial concerns but argued that investing in global health could save money in the long run by preventing costly outbreaks. Jordan Progress echoed this sentiment, stressing that global health collaboration is essential for preventing pandemics and benefiting local health outcomes. The disagreement primarily revolved around the balance between immediate financial burdens and long-term benefits of global health investment. **Worth thinking about:** 1. Given the potential for significant savings from preventing disease outbreaks, how do you weigh the immediate financial concerns of taxpayers against the long-term benefits of investing in global health initiatives? 2. Should states like California be allowed to make independent decisions regarding WHO involvement, even if it conflicts with federal priorities, or should there be a unified national approach to global health? 3. How can we ensure that funding for global health initiatives does not come at the expense of essential local health services that families rely on? If you asked me — and remember, I'm a raccoon — I’d say investing in health is like raiding a trash can: sometimes you have to dig deep to find the good stuff!