This image is not of a newspaper. It is, rather bizarrely: a photo of a black-and-white printout, of a low-quality photo, of a glossy printout, of a screenshot, of a Facebook "meme" image post. (Actually, the images we have of both photos appear to be screenshots taken of a phone displaying the photo, rather than the photo itself, which I find amusing, but isn't particularly relevant.)
Here is the original image from Facebook (scaled down slightly, but otherwise unedited); note the very tight cropping under the last line of text:
![Original Facebook image](https://cdn.statically.io/img/i.sstatic.net/GT92h.jpg)
Here is a screenshot taken from a fact-checking site which mentioned it. Note how the Facebook UI has placed a black border above and below, which is visible in subsequent versions of the image, running very close to the text because of the tight cropping on the original:
![Facebook screenshot showing top and bottom borders](https://cdn.statically.io/img/i.sstatic.net/9t9Dz.png)
Next, the colour photo of a glossy printout posted on Twitter; I've cropped off some large black borders caused by someone taking a screenshot of their phone. Note the text visible to the side and the end of a blue ".co.nz" URL below, which must have been other content on the same page; note also the shadow at bottom left and the reflected light obscuring parts of the image and first two lines of text:
![Colour photo with light bouncing off glossy paper](https://cdn.statically.io/img/i.sstatic.net/8N0Wn.jpg)
Finally, here is the image from the question for comparison, again with the phone UI cropped off. Note that the hand-written letters on the first line are where the reflection in the colour photo made it hard to read, and how the cut-off text on the left now ends at a black line rather than actually being the edge of the image or paper:
![Black and white printout shown in question](https://cdn.statically.io/img/i.sstatic.net/UavII.png)
That post is from May 2020, and was investigated by Reuters, who found no evidence of such a speech. However, the quote was doing the rounds at least a year earlier - significantly, before the Covid-19 pandemic. For instance this post from May 2019, which was investigated and rated as false by both Snopes and PolitiFact.
![Earlier Facebook post, with slightly longer quote](https://cdn.statically.io/img/i.sstatic.net/AYhZy.jpg)
This version has slightly different wording, notably ending with an extra sentence "Now, what's for lunch, huh?" Although I can't confirm the date is genuine, this blog post dated March 2019 is the earliest version of the quote I've found; it contains odd punctuation and a couple of spelling errors, but matches the wording of the more polished May 2019 image including the "what's for lunch" sign-off. Interestingly, this blog makes no reference to the WHO, but instead labels it:
Apparently…
Just A Casual Lunch Convo Between Investors.
Elsewhere on that page, there are references to a 2001 book by Christopher Hitchens titled The Trial of Henry Kissinger, so perhaps the implication is that it comes from that book? I looked up the book on Google Books and searched for various words in the alleged quote. Unsurprisingly, there was nothing remotely similar.
If it was a speech, as the Facebook posts claim, it surely would have been found by at least one of the fact-checking sites that examined it. If it was a private conversation, as the blog post claims, it's harder to disprove - but there's also no apparent reason this blogger would know about such a conversation, as they give no source at all.