WHO Spins New Defence Of Its Swine Flu Response

Comments

1. Miles Teg says

   16/06/2010 at 4:32 pm

   the virus was platic enough to cause concerns about increasing morbidity and mortality, BUT not enough for WHO/WTO/OIE to state that it was safe to trade in pork products… if a mutation can be justification for declaring a pandemic, why not more caution on trade in pork products? After all, virus mututation can and do have surprising effects… WHO in effect stopped countries from banning such trade as unscientific… double standards or do you smell a porker?

   Reply

2. wackes seppi says

   17/06/2010 at 11:31 pm

   Why “WHO spins”, and why “a briefing note attempting to offer”? Any chance that the matter is sorted out one day – or simply reported on – on the basis of facts rather than innuendo?

   This, of course does not apply to the above piece only. There are just too many pieces in the media which summon the WHO, and Margaret Chan in particular, to prove their innocence and to prove an absence of ulterior motives.

   Furthermore, there is a widespread tendency – to which WHO also succumbs – to only consider the potential conflicts of interest arising through ties with industry (“profit-driven industry” as the WHO puts it, as if there were another kind of industry). Yet the objectivity of an advice from experts can also be compromised by other interests.

   As a tax and medical insurance payer, I am of course keen to see decisions not influenced by profit-making. As a patient, I am very much afraid of decisions reflecting cost containment considerations, or anti-corporate activism.

   Reply

3. Miles Teg says

   19/06/2010 at 10:45 am

   @ Seppi, depending on your perspective, the headline is quite mild given what has occured! Balance and fair reporting should not be confused with the objectivity of ‘both sides’ when the casualty is common sense. WHO has a duty to manage conflicts of interest (or potential ones) and it has INFORMED its governing bodies that it is in charge of the policies and constantly updates its policies and manages them. That its management of conflicts on a matter of deadly consequence and costing billions is not properly handled smacks of bad management, simple. Do you want balance in coverage of the safety breaches of the BP Oil Spill – should BP be given the same amount of space to defend themselve, I think not, and neither at WHO.
   That WHO has to keep coming back to defend itself should be an inference against it, not against those who report on it and can see the trajectory of the story.
   WHO and Chan are not proving anything. A case has been made that the circumstances leading up to and the decision on the pandemic (as well as composition) is of poor quality (being generous here). This case is made by experts who are more ‘disinterested’ and equally qualified compared to to those WHO chose.
   The issue relates to a string of actions at WHO that allowed poor decisions to be made. NO ONE IS REALLY LOOKING AT HOW WHO ALLOWED LEGALLY OWNED SAMPLES OF VIRUSES TO BE TAKEN BY WHO AND DONATED TO THE PATENT PORTFOLIOS OF PRIVATE ENTITIES CONTRARY TO WHO’S OWN GUIDANCE. IF YOUR CONCERNS ARE VALIDLY CONTEXTUALISED PERHAPS WHO WILL RESPOND TO THE THOSE ISSUES INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT UP TO MEMBER STATES TO SLUG IT OUT! To be fair, Chan has been doing a great deal to improve things at WHO without much support and poor advice. Instead of Chan coming in to defend the organisation, the ADGs and experts that bear responsibility must come forward and make their case instead of hiding behind Chan’s skirts. That Chan has to take front stage repeatedly merely confirms top level ineptitude – ask ANY corporate lawyer if she would put up a CEO as a line of defense in evidence and you will have your answer.
   In other words, don’t shoot the messenger of this article….

   Reply