An analysis of practices and policies involving intellectual property, technology transfer and development shows the difficulties of achieving a positive correlation between those areas, writes Cheikh Kane.Intellectual Property Watch
25 January 2010
WHO Lashes Out As Council Of Europe Preps Hearing On Flu Pandemic
By Kaitlin Mara @ 6:19 pmThe World Health Organization today defended its declaration of a global influenza pandemic, and saying any allegations that it is fake are “wrong and irresponsible.” The statement comes as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) prepares for a public hearing tomorrow morning in Strasbourg to examine the allegations, involving representatives of the WHO and European vaccine manufacturers will be in attendance, as will independent medical experts.
WHO in June declared the H1N1 influenza strain (so-called swine flu) a “pandemic,” which automatically set into motion a series of actions such as contracts with pharmaceutical producers for vaccine production.
A motion before PACE [pdf] raises the concern that pharmaceutical companies had influenced official agencies “to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu” and said the “definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.”
WHO said that its advisers provide “a signed declaration of interests to WHO detailing any professional or financial interest that could affect the impartiality of their advice.” The statement then provides some of the WHO’s reasons for declaring the pandemic, specifically that it was a novel virus and that it was widespread geographically.
The statement also said that data from Mexico “indicated this virus also could cause severe disease and death” and that there was a related form of viral pneumonia that was not normally seen during flu season.
The seemingly low level of mortality – or even particularly serious illness – seen during this outbreak has been cited by those concerned that the pandemic threat was exaggerated. In particular, sources told Intellectual Property Watch there had been a change in the WHO guidelines on influenza preparedness to remove references to morbidity and mortality between the 2005 version and the latest version in 2009.
But, “morbidity and mortality were never part of the definition” of pandemic, said Gregory Hartl, a spokesman for the WHO on H1N1 Global Alert and Response. Pandemic has only two criteria: global spread and novelty of the flu virus (meaning people do not yet have immunity to it).
In popular thinking, pandemics are associated with death, but mortality and morbidity rates cannot be assessed until years after the end of a pandemic, he told Intellectual Property Watch. What did change between the 2005 and 2009 versions, said Hartl, was a footnote that indicated disease severity might be a criterion in pre-pandemic assessments of worrisome diseases. There was also a WHO website, he added, saying that pandemics could cause “enormous numbers of deaths or illnesses,” but this was only one possible scenario and was a website discussion not an official WHO document.
WHO was “not improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry,” and “the world is going through a real pandemic,” its statement concludes.
The Council of Europe is a 47-member Strasbourg-based body established in 1949, separate but including members of the smaller European Union. It works to develop and promote principles of human rights and democratic rule of law. The PACE public hearing will take place from 8:15-10am and will be live webcast here [Update. The link previously placed here does not work. The webcast can be accessed here, by clicking on "public hearing."]. The programme of the hearing is available here [pdf].
An urgent debate over the WHO’s conduct and the necessity of launching an investigation had been proposed but the assembly decided today not to hold one by a vote of 96 to 82, a member of the Council of Europe’s communications department told Intellectual Property Watch. The reasoning for delay is that Thursday morning – when the debate would have been scheduled – was not adequate time to prepare a text studying the question.
There will be a decision taken Friday on what to do with the motion from several parliamentarians that raised the concerns, and called for there be an “immediate investigation” into the WHO’s handling of swine flu.
Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.
Categories: English, European Policy, Human Rights, News, Public Health, WHO
25 January 2010 at 9:03 pm
During the Avian Flu scandal, WHO was taking virus samples from poor countries, giving them to rich countries’ labs like the US CDC. In violation of the WHO guidelines, those collaborating with WHO affiliated labs took out patents on the PROTECTED biodiversity of rich countries. The companies that got access somehow, made vaccines and set prices unaffordable to the poor countries. This was not a scandal in the North, even though the WHO did not follow its own guidelines (by its own admission) and CENSORED access to these guidelines by removing it from its website (hide seems to be “transparency” at WHO, and replaced it with innocuous best practices). The FREE press hardly picked this up at all and when it did, it blamed a poor country for risking global public health safety for NOT sharing. This resulted in a commitment to transparency and traceability from WHO – which developing countries had to pay for. BUT when it hurts the EU tax-payer, then it is a scandal worthy of a commission. Ce vend – while making money, the RIGHT TO HEALTH can take a back seat!
Double standardsare perhaps tolerable, but don’t expect kudos for these extreme double standards…
26 January 2010 at 4:32 pm
Mr. Wodarg will no doubt have his day in the Council of Europe Assembly on Friday. A decision to conduct an investigation is not only anticipated; it is also most welcome as it should clean the air of the pestilence of all kinds of accusations, insinuations, innuendo, etc. which has splattered the Internet. Wodarg and others’ motion for a recommendation is a concentrate of such accusations, etc. in the form of a culpability verdict. How to interpret otherwise his: “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide”? Where is the proof of the “great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients”?
The motion is wholly unacceptable as a basis for discussion in a democratic forum, particularly in the framework of the Council of Europe, the Human Rights watchdog for the continent from the Atlantic to the Ural. It is moreover irresponsible.
WHO’s statement that the description of this pandemic as a fake “is wrong and irresponsible” is to be welcomed. It is certainly not “lashing out”.
It begs reminding ourselves that, according to Wikipedia – which surely cannot be suspected of connivence with Big Pharma – that:
“An influenza pandemic is an epidemic of an influenza virus that spreads on a worldwide scale and infects a large proportion of the human population… According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a pandemic can start when three conditions have been met:
. emergence of a disease new to a population;
. agents infect humans, causing serious illness; and
. agents spread easily and sustainably among humans.”
The latter is backed by a reference to a WHO website page from December 2005, i.e from before the pandemic. . Please note that the morbidity/mortality criterion does not go beyond “serious illness”.
Public health specialists have had every reason to not only declare a pandemic, but also spearhead a worldwide immunisation response (with unfortunately developed countries following a questionable “me-first” policy).
We are quite fortunate that the H1N1 Mexican strain proved less infectious and deadly than originally feared from reports from North America. Yet we should not forget that the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1920 came in two waves with the second much deadlier than the first.
Mr. Wodarg and others, the case is not closed… unless the vaccine does its job.
26 January 2010 at 7:28 pm
[...] Reporter is available online and in print, mailed to your door.Latest Commentswackes seppi on WHO Lashes Out As Council Of Europe Preps Hearing On Flu PandemicMr. Wodarg will no doubt have his day in the Counc… »Miles Teg on Biodiversity ‘EcoChic’ [...]
26 January 2010 at 8:09 pm
There have been no double blind placebo controlled trials of vaccination in influenza (it is approved based off the surrogate marker of antibody response to the injection – but no evidence that it does in fact prevent disease). Conversely there are at least three population studies, two in the US and one in Italy that found that influenza death and hospitalization rates either did not decline or in fact increased after mass vaccination was instituted. So to sum it up, in the medical literature there is no direct evidence that flu vaccination works the only evidence available says it does not. And this is seasonal influenza we are talking here not the recent swine flu. The recommendation to vaccinate children for flu was made only as recently as 2007 or 2008 as I recall, they were never vaccinated because healthy children almost never die of flu. This change in vaccine recommendations came quickly on the heals of former president Bush’s veto of a bill which would have outlawed thimerosal from all pediatric vaccines.
Save yourself the needle prick and take some vitamin D – which by the way does have evidence in the medical literature supporting that it prevents influenza.
Paul
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/
26 January 2010 at 8:42 pm
[...] Wodarg said his “concerns have merely been strengthened” listening to WHO, and asked why the definition of a pandemic had been changed to remove the “seriousness” as a condition. Intellectual Property Watch covered this question yesterday (IPW, 25 January 2010). [...]
27 January 2010 at 7:46 pm
@ wackes seppi – Of course there is no collusion here. Not! Fukuda could have used the WHO Guidelines on Partnerships with commercial organisations or a host of other means to explain how conflicts of interests were managed. Surprise surprise, he did not really. Bald denial.
Can a case for collusion be made?
When WHO was caught red-handed by the Indonesian’s for sharing viruses directly or indirectly with companies in VIOLATION of its own Guidelines, it did the right thing. It removed the Guidelines from the website. A very responsible thing to do don’t you think? Now Ce Bono and follow the money.
Funny even the Council of Europe does not raise this aspect. WHO was “complicit” in violating its own guidelines, allowing companies to patent the results and “deny” access to the poor through price gourging, openly admits patents were taken out and then says “no collusion”.
Haha – this is just a song and dance to keep the Europeans entertained ‘as if’ it matters and to keep up the perception that something is being done. Meanwhile back at the ranch, EU corporations are making a killing!
Its “corporatised science” and shoddy management like this that undermines the need for responsiveness to a potentially deadly influenza epidemic, and being a very plastic virus, this is a real threat.
@Philip – nice one.
29 January 2010 at 7:13 pm
[...] the WHO stands by its decision to label H1N1 a pandemic, citing geographic spread and the virus’ novelty as its primary [...]