Artigos

Conteúdo (article):

Introduction
This essay discusses some concerns about the future of life on Earth, mixing scientific knowledge,
literary references, traditional knowledge, beliefs and values. The intention is to encourage readers
from different areas of interest to explore alternatives for preventing, resisting and facing challenges
in McLuhan\'s global village 1 , formulated from the approach of disease as an evolutionary
phenomenon of life on Earth.
In Love in the Time of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez 2 tells the saga of a resilient passion during
half a century of mismatches and frustrations. Through the admirable lens of fantastic realism, he
intersperses this story with memories of the pest that ravaged Cartagena de las Indias, Colombia, at
the end of the 19th century. And it is said that when the fullness of that love began, the disease
ended.
The coincidence could be interpreted along the lines of the popular belief that "there are evils that
come to good" or that "after the storm comes the tranquility", in other words, the hope exercised
when suffering spreads sneakily and unexpectedly, with restraint or violence, and leaves indelible
marks on the collective conscience, just like pests.
These mentions aim to ask, in a romantic tone: where is love in the times of Covid-19? Can this
pandemic motivate the re-signification of the pests that torment humanity? And thus, result in
transformations of the painful reality of today into the beneficial reality of tomorrow?

Which Pests?
The term pest encompasses different meanings. The approach adopted here stems from Darwin\'s
understanding 3 of the diversity of life on Earth, interpreting diseases as phenomena that are part of
the evolutionary process of all living beings on the planet. Species, including humans, share or
compete for resources and means to guarantee and, if possible, extend their permanence in these
scenarios, a process that eventually leads to illness or death.
These events constitute evolutionary opportunities, an aspect that will be explored in the course of
this essay, starting from Darwin\'s evolutionary conjecture, which has so far not been refuted, in
Popper\'s sense 4 of the term. The denial of this hypothesis is only categorical among followers of
religious beliefs or denialist attitudes towards scientific reason.
Therefore, it is plausible to see diseases as part of this evolution and, by extension, to recognize
infectious diseases as exemplary cases of this dynamic of life on Earth.

Pests in the Age of Extremes
The period between World War I and the fall of the Berlin Wall was referred to by Hobsbawm 5 as
the Age of Extremes. However, in the preface to the book, the author admits that: "We do not know
what will come next, nor what the second millennium will be like, although we can be sure that it
will have been shaped by the Brief Twentieth Century."
In this historical alignment, it is interesting to compare key aspects of the current pandemic with
reports of the one that occurred at the end of World War I, nicknamed the Spanish Flu, whose agent
was possibly a virus, since at the time it was still impossible to identify these entities; confirmation
was much later, based on advanced studies and technologies 6 . The name of the disease had to do
with the free dissemination of serious cases in Spain, the only European country that remained
neutral in the war and therefore allowed information to be disseminated about the seriousness of the
disease and, in particular, a staggering number of deaths. In the other countries, the general hardship

aggravated by the disease was not publicized, so as not to expose military weaknesses to the
adversaries.
In the period that followed, science and techniques developed at an ever-faster pace, making it
possible to identify the agent of the new pest, SARS-COV-2, shortly after the outbreak of the
disease, designated by world convention with the acronym Covid-19. In less than a year, it was
possible to produce vaccines and shortly afterwards to start scaling up production of this precious
resource for containing the disease on a global scale. It is also worth mentioning the fragility or
absence of national health systems and international organizations a hundred years ago, in contrast
to the availability of these institutional resources today.
It must be recognized that both the identification of the agent and the production of vaccines against
this virus, as well as the improvement of health institutions, resulted from the knowledge and
technologies developed in the period between these two pandemics. However, the outbreak and
worsening of Covid-19 are just as scandalous as what happened during the Spanish pandemic. One
wonders what the war had to do with that event. The current pandemic, which has emerged during a
period of the greatest scientific progress and growth in wealth in human history, seems like a
macabre celebration as it reveals the association between suffering with the pest and despair with
inequalities in this global village. The question must again be asked: are we at war? Who is the
enemy?
The knowledge and innovations that would enable preventive measures and containment of the
current pandemic phenomenon have not been made available, as a priority, for this purpose. But it
has been put to good use by the economic-financial and industrial complex to produce equipment
and supplies to be sold at the best price, allegedly under the false samaritanism 7 of collaborating
with the effort to combat the disease. An execrable expression of this situation is that even the
availability of vaccines was subordinated to this orientation 8 .
We are therefore faced with the association between pest, development and inequality. What is this
Siamese link that prevents most of the world\'s population from accessing the benefits of advances in

knowledge and wealth? In the end, who is the enemy in this pandemic – just the virus? And what
about inequality? Are we going to wait for the next infectious pandemic to renew our lamentations
and continue releasing statements and institutional documents and scientific publications, produced
and disseminated on an ever-increasing scale in the age of global communications?
An aggravating factor in this assessment is that it overlooks the long-standing recognition that the
benefits of development with regard to infectious diseases must be shared among everyone. Not
only under the aegis of ethical principles, but also because by not including everyone, as is the case
with vaccination, such measures become ineffective or even useless in curbing or controlling these
morbid processes. This postulate can be found in the caput of the Constitution of the World Health
Organization 9 , approved 75 years ago at the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN): "The
results achieved by each State in the promotion and protection of health are of value to all [...]. The
inequality of the various countries in terms of health promotion and disease control, especially
communicable diseases, constitutes a common danger." How can we explain the disregard for these
commitments made by the governments of every country in the world?
This disdain for science and the commitments of nations sets up a paradox in the progress of
development vis-à-vis inequality. But paradoxes are only logical provocations from which it is
always possible to escape. In this case, the way out begins with an examination of two key
concepts: the first, which sees development as the driving force capable of leading humanity to the
enjoyment of increasing well-being; the other, which is based on the belief that the hardships of the
present will be overcome with the continuous advance of this development. The next step is to ask:
what is this development? The answer would dissolve this paradox by recognizing the collective
self-deception established throughout the age of extremes, because the progress underway in the
short 20th century, "global development", has led to a terrible growth in inequalities between
peoples. It is, therefore, a collective self-deception, generated by disregarding or neglecting factors
that, at the heart of this development, lead to the emergence and worsening of diseases.

The odd coexistence of development and inequality has been dramatically expressed in the Covid-
19 pandemic, in the form of afflictions, illnesses and deaths that affect everyone, not just those
directly affected by the disease. This is a hindrance that could be largely avoided or mitigated if
today\'s knowledge and technical means were made available for this purpose.
Decisions and measures are usually taken promptly, as warned 10 in the case of Ebola eight years
ago, only when these ailments affect the rich world of global development, because there is no point
in investing against health problems in poor regions. A similar case is the recent international health
emergency declared by the WHO in the face of Monkey Pox, known to be endemic in parts
forgotten by global development, which now threatens to affect the world enriched by this type of
development.
These concerns sound even more threatening, even though we know a lot about various agents
capable of unleashing even more scandalous disorders than those observed during Covid-19, which
are localized endemics or health alert episodes that only affect regions far from civilization or
neglected by progress, where it is not worth investing against health problems.
It seems that Hobsbawm\'s era of extremes did not end in the brief 20th century, because "We still
don\'t know what will come next".

Diseases, Alerts and Transformations
The future of humanity is worrying in Huxley\'s 11 prediction, describing a world where everyone is
genetically programmed, psychologically conditioned and permanently doped to live in enjoyment,
under the control of a power that decides everything. More impressive is Orwell\'s prediction 12 , when
he talks about a place where everyone suffers to a greater or lesser degree, under the heel of an
insane, invisible and implacable power. They are, in fact, warnings that foreshadow an era of
unhappiness that is sneaking up on humanity, due to the control and, down the line, total domination
of knowledge and techniques under regimes that inhibit or eliminate the possibility of their social
use, in the sense given to this term by Bourdieu 13 . Situations in which power reigns that can only be

explained by and which progressively strengthens itself by disregarding, repressing and finally
eliminating the possibility of any individual or collective initiatives that oppose such domination.
It could be interpreted that the authors were referring to a pest of unhappiness and suffering that
threatens the future of humanity, given the current course of development under the domination of
private interests and the regressive influence of society\'s aspirations. It would then be appropriate to
recall Berlinguer 14 : "[...] since many diseases originate in improper machinery, housing, materials,
products, habits, relationships with the environment and social relations, it must become common
sense to start from pathological phenomena in order to transform living conditions"; and, further on:
"This collective movement for health can be one of the strongest stimuli for changes in those factors
that are not only morbid, but also alienating, or that in some way create obstacles to the
development of the community".
The idea of the re-signification of pests in the course of Covid-19 was raised at the beginning of this
paper, as an opportunity to trigger transformations in humanity\'s living conditions through changes
in the current course of development that engenders the emergence of factors that progressively
strengthen the outbreak of pests in this long-lasting phase of the age of extremes in which we live.
This understanding results from the comprehension of diseases as biological evolution, as pointed
out above, associated with social evolution, which is expressed in the transformation of beliefs,
values, behaviors and actions. Evolutionary processes that are not predetermined but can be actively
pursued to build a less terrible future, by controlling or eliminating the factors that, present in the
current phase of globalized development, inexorably contribute to causing disease on a worldwide
scale.

State and Public Policies
A relevant question deserves attention in this reflective journey: what does the state have to do with
the historical evolution of the situation that has currently emerged with the Covid-19 pandemic?
There is much to discuss on this issue. However, we will focus here on just a few aspects relating to

the participation of national societies as the driving force behind public policy transformations in
the international context.
A peculiar trait of the state\'s nature identifies it as an instance of power disputed by interests of
various origins, through processes that often result in the hegemony of tendencies far removed from
the aspirations of society as a whole. The state then becomes the hostage of selfish interests that
seek to direct the power that it has established for their exclusive benefit. As a result, the state
silently or openly connives in supporting economic projects that systematically become "[...] factors
that are not only morbid, but also alienating, or that in some way create obstacles to the
development of the community" 14 . This connivance is expressed through inertia, inhibitory or
repressive measures in the face of social demands that are contrary to or out of line with the
dominant interests within the state apparatus.
Hence the motivation to rethink the pandemic as "[...] the possibility of starting from pathological
phenomena to transform living conditions" 14 . Transformation that indispensably implies changes in
the actions of public authorities. Huxley\'s foresight or Orwell\'s foreboding sound like worrying
warnings that foreshadow a world where each and every person is deprived of the right to choose or
even think about their destiny, unable to participate in the construction of a global village where
scientific and technological development is oriented in the direction that would allow everyone to
live longer and better.
During the 20th century, progress in science and technology led to extraordinary growth in world
wealth. On the other hand, it has resulted in a deepening of the gulf that separates the few who have
almost everything from the majority who have almost nothing 15 . This phenomenon has a clear
tendency to exacerbate itself and thus perpetuate the era of extremes throughout the new
millennium. It is development that generates progress and accumulates wealth, but also engenders
the emergence of morbid factors for a huge contingent of humanity. By causing suffering and
increasing the occurrence of illnesses and deaths, should we treat this disharmony as a kind of pest
of modernity that amplifies all the others?

These questions raise long-standing concerns about possibilities that point in opposite directions:
building the future in solidarity, based on the progress of wealth and well-being founded on the
advancement of the sciences and their social uses; or, on the contrary, enduring the nightmare of
inequalities resulting from the unfair distribution of the benefits of progress in all parts of the world.
These are choices to be made today, so that the pests of tomorrow are not amplified or even caused
by the pest of modernity. Not least because, in the current course of global development, the
situation of a new pandemic like Covid-19 could take on Dantesque dimensions.

Quo Vadis Public Health?
Understanding the pandemic as a wake-up call and an opportunity for transformations that lead, in
the words of Santos 16 , to "a human globalization", results from the correlation between worsening
social and economic conditions and the severity of the pandemic. In this sense, it is in line with the
reflection on the fight for health as part of the search for an equitable sharing of the benefits of well-
being and wealth brought about by development.
Quammen 17 reports on a series of studies that point to the risk of new pests emerging or old ones
recurring. Studies that systematically refer to the correction of these risks with the accelerated
process of intervention in ecosystems where beings live and evolve that, when interacting with
human populations, can trigger pandemic processes. In a way, they reveal concerns similar to those
of Huxley and Orwell about a future of alienation and unhappiness exquisitely characterized by
terrible and inescapable pests. On the other hand, they represent valuable contributions to
reorienting the public policies currently in force around the world.
The question is how to sensitize, influence or condition decisions in the direction of these
reorientations in the interest of the peoples of all nations, when these decisions, led by the most
powerful countries, are always made in the interests of the business and financial conglomerates
that operate in the field of health and, therefore, the policies of this sector.

The participation of national societies on this world stage presupposes the willingness of citizens to
remain attentive and proactive with regard to these issues and the ways in which they can be dealt
with in this dual scenario, since it is impossible to act in the field of international relations without
the support of militancy in national environments. In this sense, it is worth remembering Granda 18 :
"En este momento no tenemos una idea clara del futuro, pero si sabemos que la construcción del
mismo se basa en las potencialidades del acuerdo que logremos las resistencias globalizadas
alrededor de alternativas democráticas y diferentes de la perspectiva globalista."
However, social participation in the international context requires caution in several respects. The
availability of the goods and services needed to preserve health and treat illnesses depends on the
actions of public authorities and private organizations that have long been intensely involved in
defending and expanding their interests. This is a field of disputes in which public health policies
often become hostage to the decisions and actions of the various branches of private business
involved, directly or indirectly, in the production and supply of these goods and services. In this
arena, interests are projected that must be mutually adjusted, as well as others that are
irreconcilable. Hence the difficulties in balancing the interests of the producers and providers of
health goods and services, on the one hand, and the beneficiaries of access to these goods and
services, on the other. These difficulties are exacerbated by the diversification of beneficiaries\'
interests, due to economic factors, beliefs and values, political choices and forms of activism and
other various circumstances.
These arguments demonstrate the importance of the obstacles to the participation of society in the
formulation, execution and evaluation of public policies in the field of health, both in the context of
each country and in the context of international relations. Social participation in each country takes
place according to multiple factors, including the institutions of public power, which interfere by
stimulating or restraining this participation. In the sphere of international relations, this participation
is generally dependent on the legitimacy of their rulers, who have a mandate to conduct public
policies that reflect the interests of national societies or contradict them. These are valuable

considerations, since the actions of governments in national contexts and in the United Nations are
based on interests that go beyond those of the national societies that give them their mandate, since
they involve private interests from both the countries themselves and powerful transnational
conglomerates.
Raising the debate on this topic in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic is justified by the seriousness
of this disease, which has spread rapidly and continues to pest humanity, in the face of which
government measures have been disparate between countries and regions of the world. There is a
disconnect between policies and actions that sometimes border on negligence or historical and
health-related ignorance of ancient and even more recent pests. This ignorance is sometimes
expressed in the form of a morbid attraction to disqualify the measures recommended to prevent or
reduce the various impacts of pandemics.
It is unpostponable to recognize the pandemic situation as an opportunity to broaden the willingness
to fight for health, to the point of effectively influencing the reorientation of public policies, which
are now in tune with the logic of ongoing global development. This willingness is strengthened by
recognizing that a certain form of participation by society is already taking place, through admirable
community initiatives in all parts of the world, to support and help the most vulnerable contingents
of the population. Initiatives that have always existed in other times of crisis and will continue, after
the pandemic, to focus on other social and economic needs, despite or on the margins of public
power.
The contrast pointed out between the fragility of social participation in public policies and its strong
presence in the form of community solidarity may be the key to undoing the paradoxical knot cited
by Fonseca 19 : "Nobody accepts it, nobody can take it anymore: none of us agrees with the sea of
mud, the debauchery and shame of our public and community life. The problem is that, at the same
time, the result of all of us together is precisely all of this!"
Intolerance with the status quo of public affairs at the beginning of the new millennium is not
enough. É We need to take sides in the fight for health as part of the fight for democracy.

democracy. A good start could result from the virtuous synergy between intolerance proclaimed
individually and the practice of solidarity exercised by many by many in their daily lives.
Otherwise, the pandemic will pass and come another, and we will continue to be divided between
proclaimers of our own intolerance and so many others who, without proclamations, share a daily
struggle on behalf of their more unfortunate peers.

Pests and International Relations
Relations between the member states of the United Nations 20 , which are constantly realigning
geopolitically, often project invisible barriers in the direction of the objectives set by this
intergovernmental organization. In this context, the altruism of health is escorted by the realism of
diplomacy, to the point where conditionalities inherent to the interests of national states are
established, permanently or eventually, for international cooperation processes 21 .
The inaugural assembly of the United Nations, almost eight decades ago, approved only one
specialized technical entity, the WHO, postponing other initiatives of this kind to future meetings. A
plausible interpretation is that at that time, practically every country was experiencing the
calamitous state of health services and the widespread anguish over the scarcity of these resources,
which had been exacerbated during World War II. This situation could have been better dealt with
through the exchange of knowledge and techniques, or, in many cases, through aid from
industrialized or developed countries to poorer ones. In addition, other factors may have
corroborated this decision: the evident popular expectation in all countries; and the caution arising
from the knowledge, established since the 19th century, that infectious diseases are a risk for all
countries, including the most developed, i.e., it was a matter related to the security of all nations,
including the richest.
It seems that the fundamental argument is that the main purpose of that founding assembly of the
United Nations – to maintain peace and security in the world – included the ideal of promoting
health and preventing disease, which could have been strengthened by technological advances.

However, the use of these advances in the globalization scenario "[...] depends on what we do with
national policies and what international agreements we establish", according to Chang\'s analysis 7 ,
when countering the falsehood of the bad Samaritans who proclaim the inevitability of the "[...]
neoliberal globalization that is happening today".
This brief historical review adds to arguments about the validity and expansion of social
participation in the international health context, as well as in the countries themselves, since they
are related arenas where different actors representing their respective social, economic, political and
scientific backgrounds face off and seek consensus. Consensus is often achieved without any
alignment of government positions with the demands of social movements.

Social Participation and Public Policies in Times of Pests
Studies on the occurrence of pests in different social and geopolitical contexts 22,23 point to two
common aspects that deserve attention: on the one hand, the observation that the victimized
populations generally do not influence the measures adopted by the public authorities; on the other
hand, that these measures are generally delayed and insufficient or, worse still, carried out
negligently, both in terms of preventive measures of a collective nature and those capable of
alleviating the suffering of those affected, as in the harsh times of the current pandemic.
It is worth emphasizing that this evaluation concerns public management, since solidarity initiatives
generated and sustained at community level can be observed as in the past, in all parts of the world.
Initiatives that replace or make more profitable those adopted by the public authorities.
What is striking is the contrast between the past, when nothing, or almost nothing, was known about
the causes and progress of pestilential episodes, and the current era, when it is possible to identify
biological causes and triggering factors, indicate measures capable of reducing the impacts, and also
provide means to extend the control and even the extinction of such evils.
It would be absurd to attribute this result to intrinsic flaws in science, since its primary function is to
find ways of making nature\'s own resources available to tackle specific problems, in addition to

those that come from artificial means. The issue implicit in the origin of these flaws concerns the
fact that deliberations on the use of these resources depend on personal, corporate or power
decisions made on behalf of society.
These failures are interpreted by Mahoney & Morel 24 based on the triple involvement of science, the
market and the government, who mainly attribute to the market and the government the vices that
restrict the use of these resources by the majority of populations in all parts of the world.
The argument here is that this failure, in its threefold configuration, revolves around one axis, social
participation, which, being sidelined by greater powers, is unable to redirect the direction of the
political processes that generate this effect. Ultimately, it is a flaw that has more to do with the
progressive remodeling of state action in this long era of extremes, which tends to delimit or
atrophy social participation.
This line of thinking admits that both science and government suffer from dominant market
influences and that, therefore, under this hegemony, they are unable to reorient themselves, as a
priority, towards the interests of society. It is fair to acknowledge that many of the players in the
scientific and governmental fields are aware of this situation and even adopt attitudes and initiatives
that go against it, but their influence is becoming weaker in the face of the dominant interests of the
market.
This strengthens the conviction that the potential transformations stimulated by the pandemic will
only materialize in the direction of social interests, through an insurrection in the field of public
power instituted from the struggle for health as part of that for democracy.
The progress that fuels the growth of world wealth pari passu with the worsening of inequalities
has become the most serious pest of modern times. Let\'s remember what happened during the
current pandemic: the virus was quickly identified and measures to contain its spread and prevent or
reduce the effects of the disease or its most serious forms were established in surprising time.
However, more than three years on from the first case of the disease, a huge proportion of humanity
is still suffering and taking risks as a result of this pandemic. In addition, it is clear that, unlike this

unassisted majority, those who are more privileged in the distribution of the world\'s wealth enjoy
most or all of the benefits of the progress available to ease the burden of living with the disease,
both in terms of prevention and treatment of the illness, as well as the conditions that indirectly
contribute in the same direction, such as housing, transportation, work, food and general well-being.
Covid-19 is therefore an opportunity to rethink, reinvigorate and thus reorient and strengthen the
democratic practice of social participation on the national and international stage, in order to
reorient all public policies that directly or indirectly have to do with health.
In light of these considerations, three questions arise: how do we deal with the interests of the large
business and financial corporations that hold power over the processes inherent in globalized
development? How do we promote the collective interest, differentiated into multiple segments that
act on the basis of the rich diversity of their cultural traditions and customs? How can these
conflicts be resolved, both in different national contexts and on a global scale?
A good start in tackling these issues would be to look at the guidelines for health emergencies
issued by different bodies: scientific communities, corporate bodies, political or religious
organizations and government institutions in each country. These initiatives are misaligned and
sometimes conflict with scientific recommendations, which are regularly disseminated, but are also
disseminated in a way that is inattentive or even detrimental to the circumstances of the different
social segments.
All this contributes, among other undesirable results, to the intensification of disputes between
groups with divergent interests, both in the scientific field and in government policies. This also
explains the pandemonium that spread through the population during the pandemic. Both effects are
aggravated by the intense dissemination via social networks (inducing exacerbated concerns) and
antisocial networks (generating fake news) that make up the phenomenon known as the infodemic.
This is a critical point to consider, as the scientific and technological development of
communication systems in the global village is dominated by business and financial entities that
thus promote their exclusive interests.

In this respect, it is worth highlighting the regrettable uncritical use of this global media network,
which is subservient to interests other than those of individual citizens and of society as a whole,
including representatives of scientific or professional organizations 25,26 and even international health
bodies.
This raises the question that closes the agenda of challenges outlined in this essay: how can we
interact with modern media to drive transformations in favor of society in times of pests?

Final Comment
Resilience in the quest to build the future persists despite humanity\'s difficult experience throughout
history. Certainly, because the ideal of human solidarity resists the selfishness of those who enjoy
the achievements of the civilization process without the slightest concern for the needs of so many
others.
Life is a dangerous experience, because it leads towards the future, which is uncertain by nature.
Surviving implies shaping a future that makes it possible for this experience to continue, with
resilient hope in the face of past setbacks and in the direction of beneficial times to come.
At the turn of the millennium, two factors allowed for an optimistic outlook for the times ahead: the
explosion of scientific and technological progress in the final decades of the millennium that was
ending and the revived hope for the social uses of this progress, due to social movements and
governments committed to this goal in many countries at the time. It was, therefore, a certain idea
of the future filled with favorable expectations from world society, expressed in the Millennium
Declaration approved by the United Nations General Assembly 27 . However, by the end of the first
decade of the millennium, these expectations had declined. Today, two decades later and just a few
years after the outbreak of the pandemic whose effects are still in force, another declaration like that
would not be credible.

However, the present must not allow itself to be dominated by despair in the face of the past that is
projected into the future; rather, it must take heart and persist in facing up to the unavoidable
uncertainties inherent in the future.
The intention stated at the beginning of this essay was to highlight some of the aspects to be
considered in relation to the future of human life on the planet, based on rethinking the disease, in
this case the Covid-19 pandemic, as a stimulus for the transformation of health policies that evolve
interactively in the contexts of each country and on a global scale.
Rather than concluding, this text invites debate on the paths to be taken by world societies at this
crucial moment in history. The reflections presented here aim to persevere in the hope of promoting
the construction of the future, not only from within the state\'s institutional framework, but based on
democratic alternatives that direct and exercise social control over the state in order to fulfill its
duties.

References
1. MCLUHAN M. 1972. A galáxia de Gutenberg: a formação do homem tipográfico. São
Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 390 p.
2. MÁRQUEZ GG. 2019. O amor nos tempos do Cólera. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 432 p.
3. DARWIN C. 2014. A origem das espécies. São Paulo: Martin Claret, 574 p.
4. POPPER K. 2018. Conjecturas e refutações. Lisboa: Edições 70, 656 p.
5. HOBSBAWM E. 1995. Era dos Extremos: O Breve Século XX: 1914-1991. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 632 p.
6. TAUBENBERGER JK, HULTIN JV & MORENS DM. 2007. Discovery and
characterization of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus in historical context. Antivir Ther 12: 581-
591.
7. CHANG HJ. 2008. Maus samaritanos: o mito do livre comércio e a história secreta do
capitalismo. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 288 p.
8. SWAMINATHAN S ET AL. 2022. Reboot biomedical R&D in the global public interest.
Nature 602: 207-210.
9. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. 1948. Constitution. Geneva: WHO, 1948. Available
at: https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution . Retrieved July 13, 2022.
10. SILVA JAA. 2014. Ebola, omissão e negligência. Núcleo de Estudos sobre Bioética e
Diplomacia em Saúde, Brasília, 9 set. 2014. Available at: https://bioeticaediplomacia.org/ebola-
omissao-e-negligencia/ . Retrieved July 20, 2022.
11. HUXLEY AL. 2014. Admirável mundo novo. São Paulo: Globo, 314 p.
12. ORWELL G. 2009. 1984. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 416 p.
13. BOURDIEU P. 1997. Os usos sociais da ciência: por uma sociologia clínica do campo
científico. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 86 p.
14. BERLINGUER G. 1988. A doença. São Paulo: Cebes-Hucitec, 150 p.
15. LANDES D. 1998. A riqueza e a pobreza das nações. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 784 p.
16. SANTOS M. 2002. Por uma globalização mais humana. In: SANTOS M (org.). O país
distorcido: o Brasil, a globalização a cidadania. São Paulo: Publifolha, 221 p.
17. QUAMMEN D. 2020. Contágio: infecções de origem animal e a evolução das pandemias.
São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 544 p.
18. GRANDA E. ¿Quo Vadis Saúde Pública? In: FORO DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL EN
SALUD. CONFERENCIA NACIONAL EN SALUD, 2., 2004, Lima. Anais […]. Available at:
https://www.observatoriorh.org/sites/default/files/webfiles/fulltext/saludyvida_vol3.pdf . Retrieved
July 19, 2022.

19. FONSECA EG. 2001. Vícios privados, benefícios públicos? A ética na riqueza das nações.
São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 239 p.
20. UNITED NATIONS. 1945. The Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco: UN, 1945.
Available at: https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/91220-carta-das-nacoes-unidas. Retrieved July 19, 2022.
21. SANTANA JFNP. 2012. Cooperação sul-sul na área da saúde: dimensões bioéticas. Tese
(Doutorado em Ciências da Saúde) - Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 2012. 168 p.
22. SCHWARCZ L & STARLING SHM. 2020. A bailarina da morte: a gripe espanhola no
Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 368 p.
23. ROMERO LCP. 2019. Saúde & política - A doença como protagonista da história. Brasília:
Outubro Edições, 248 p.
24. MAHONEY RT & MOREL CM. 2006. A global health innovation system (GHIS).
Innovation Strategy Today 2(1): 1-12. Available at:
https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/bitstream/handle/icict/16466/MahoneyMorel2006PaperGHIS.pdf;jsessi
onid=B8366FFF67C3A28EE45F12BB110E9428?sequence=2. Retrieved July 13, 2022.
25. RUBIN R. 2022. When Physicians Spread Unscientific Information About COVID-19.
JAMA 327(10): 904-906.
26. GUIMARÃES R. 2021. Vacinas: Da Saúde Pública ao Big Business. Ciênc. saúde colet. 26
(5): 1847-1852.
27. UNITED NATIONS. 2000. Millennium Declaration. New York: UN, 2000.