world

Recordings reveal WHO's analysis of pandemic in private

41 Comments
By MARIA CHENG

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


41 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

If I were a chief of WHO, even though I have no medical degree, just by knowing that there is some chance that Wuhan virus could lead to a pandemic with millions of dead, I would boldly suggest to all countries to seal the borders with China ASAP and isolate ones arrived from China recently and their contacts. Unfortunately, professionals from WHO did not do that. And did not show any regrets for not doing that. That is why WHO should be heavily reorganized.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I would boldly suggest to all countries to seal the borders with China ASAP and isolate ones arrived from China recently and their contacts. 

Hindsight is always 20/20, in reality there is always "some chance" of a new or re-emerging infectious disease coming out from the usual places. Your suggestion would require that the recommendation would have to be issued almost every year since the first SARS virus in 2003, it is not difficult to think what would have happened after the first couple of times the WHO did that; absolutely no information from China to the outside world, and an even worse pandemic this year than what we ended up, with other countries having to find out from themselves every detail about the disease.

The WHO functions based on voluntary cooperation, and it has very little to pressure uncooperative countries, still people expect it to work as some kind of all powerful entity that can force the world to their will. People working for it know very well they have huge responsibilities but without the power necessary to take care of it, that is why they have to choose to respond "boldly" and risk a worse outcome, or appear weak and powerless but rescue even a tiny shard of extra information from countries that are not willing to cooperate for the common good.

There is no easy solution for this, a proper WHO would need much more power to do their functions efficiently, but not a single country would agree to that, so the world gets what little can be done by leaving cooperation to the good will of everybody.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The WHO is just doing what any other fundamentally compromised organization is doing: carrying out the bidding of its biggest contributors.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

https://www.who.int/about/funding/contributors

With US funding still in doubt and a chief wined and dined by friendly folk in the CCP, what else could one expect?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The WHO is just doing what any other fundamentally compromised organization is doing: carrying out the bidding of its biggest contributors.

So to prove your point you demonstrate that China is a terribly minor contributor, especially compared with the US that provides ten times more, and so it supposedly proves why it chose to defend Chinese interests instead of the American ones?

That makes no sense. Also nowhere in your source it says that contributors do anything to direct decisions. Even without the US contributions China is not even in the top ten, even Japan gives almost 3 times more to the organization that China.

In reality the greatest limitation for the work of the WHO is not economic contributions but information and collaboration. That is what compromises its function and its a "secret" that every single professional working on public health knows very well.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"In reality the greatest limitation for the work of the WHO is not economic contributions but information and collaboration.

The reality is much more complex.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world-health-organization-failed/610063/

WHO has become too politicized. The fish rots from the head.

If public health was the bigger concern over political partisanship then the WHO leadership would have listened to Taiwan when it was warned about human-to-human transmission. The fact is that Taiwan has been successful in controlling the virus simply because it ignored WHO's official statements and did their own independent investigations.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

the WHO leadership would have listened to Taiwan when it was warned about human-to-human transmission. 

As a scientific organization the WHO hadn't the freedom to do was Taiwan. The whole point was (again) that the WHO did not have the necessary information to proclaim clear, sustained human to human transmission. Taiwan can simply not believe China and do whatever it feels is appropriate, after all it does not have to respond to any other country (much less China) about what it does.

The WHO on the contrary has the scientific responsibility to only express the conclusions it reaches according to the information it is available to them. Taiwan can say they suspected something, but without providing proof the WHO can only say what it said, that they had no proof of it. It has no mechanism to pressure China to do be open and truthful.

Every country was free to do as they considered appropriate. That includes interpreting "Chinese authorities say no human to human transmission has been proved" as "China is not giving us information or access to make the decision ourselves".

IF Taiwan gave the WHO the objective data necessary to make the opposite statement that would be a completely different story, but no such thing happened. At that point they had only one case (outside of China) indicating human to human transmission was possible.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Not a word in the whole article about Chinas's role in the spread of the virus, and the CCP influence on the WHO. Some journalism...

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

virusrexToday  12:00 pm JST

The WHO is just doing what any other fundamentally compromised organization is doing: carrying out the bidding of its biggest contributors.

So to prove your point you demonstrate that China is a terribly minor contributor, especially compared with the US that provides ten times more, and so it supposedly proves why it chose to defend Chinese interests instead of the American ones? 

That makes no sense. Also nowhere in your source it says that contributors do anything to direct decisions. Even without the US contributions China is not even in the top ten, even Japan gives almost 3 times more to the organization that China.

In reality the greatest limitation for the work of the WHO is not economic contributions but information and collaboration. That is what compromises its function and its a "secret" that every single professional working on public health knows very well.

Read between the lines. With Tedros in their pocket, China has/had more influence that their contributions would suggest.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Not a word in the whole article about Chinas's role in the spread of the virus, and the CCP influence on the WHO. Some journalism...

China and WHO relations are mentioned twice in the article. Twice. Explicitly in a negative context.

But keep telling us about journalism and the bubble whilst posting links to fake news. Credibility has long flown through the window.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Read between the lines. With Tedros in their pocket, China has/had more influence that their contributions would suggest.

Oh and you can prove this is not just an imaginary conspiracy with... nothing, again.

Maybe he is in the pocket of the Martians, or Unicorns, who knows? After all you think you can imagine anything if you read between the lines while carefully avoiding reading anything that is on the lines.

Why then provide a link to prove yourself wrong?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

“Read between the lines” often means I have nothing to add or I’m not literate enough to articulate what I want you to believe.

So trump.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

China has/had more influence that their contributions would suggest.

Case in point. Which is it? Has or had?

That’s quite an important distinction.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

"Read between the lines. With Tedros in their pocket, China has/had more influence that their contributions would suggest.

Oh and you can prove this is not just an imaginary conspiracy with... nothing, again.

Case in point. Which is it? Has or had?

Already provided you a link from The Atlantic if you care to read. The guy's appointment was backed by China and a China-backed bloc of nations. He owes his position to China.

Now don't bring your partisan arguments here, since The Atlantic is a widely respected publication which is not exactly known for being soft on the outgoing POTUS and his administration.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Now don't bring your partisan arguments here, since The Atlantic is a widely respected publication which is not exactly known for being soft on the outgoing POTUS and his administration.

You are the only one here bringing partisan arguments. Every single source of information can be wrong, specially when it makes suppositions and hypothetical situations the basis of its conclusions.

The article does nothing to prove that the WHO is "in the pocked" of China, nor that the organization could have done anything to pressure it to share more. It does not even try to prove that it is a monolithic organization that moves only in the direction of a single person without any input on the decisions from anybody else. It makes it seem as if Tedros was only in political danger from displeasing China, when the completely obvious consequences of displeasing the whole world are much worse.

It is as easy to argument that the H1N1 situation is what made the WHO unable to contradict China until it could find evidence from outside the country. In that aspect other countries like the US share part of the responsibility of pushing the WHO into such a powerless state. Bad if you do bad if you don't, so the only viable exit is to choose the less risky option, whatever would bring the very necessary Chinese cooperation.

The WHO is not partial to China, is partial to move against the interests of any country unless clear and objective data can be obtained, and that is thanks to the huge backlash it got from doing the correct thing with influenza. It no longer have the space it had before to use a good record to justify quick assumptions.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"The article does nothing to prove that the WHO is "in the pocked" of China"

No but the article insinuates that the current WHO head definitely is.

"The WHO is not partial to China"

Of course not, since it is a global organization with a presence all over the world. But the WHO head definitely is.

"It makes it seem as if Tedros was only in political danger from displeasing China, when the completely obvious consequences of displeasing the whole world are much worse."

The guy obviously cares more about his masters to whom he is beholden than he does about the opinions of the world or about WHO's mission and prestige. Had he listened to Taiwan and warned countries that there is a possibility of human-to-human transmission maybe the outcome of the pandemic would have been different. Instead he went on singing to the tune of China till it was too late. China , as part of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, succeeded in getting it's guy appointed as the head of the WHO, who later went on to undermine the very organization that he was leading.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No but the article insinuates that the current WHO head definitely is.

Then why do you use it to refute my point, which is that no proof of that accusation was ever presented?

Anybody can insinuate things, especially when ignoring extremely pertinent arguments contrary to that conclusion, I asked for proof, of which your article is not. Read more carefully.

The guy obviously cares more about his masters to whom he is beholden than he does about the opinions of the world or about WHO's mission and prestige.

That is a personal, subjective and irrational conclusion on your part. The guy has aimed for an international role and there is nothing that China can give that he would not get by pleasing the world instead.

Had he listened to Taiwan and warned countries that there is a possibility of human-to-human transmission maybe the outcome of the pandemic would have been different. 

No, the WHO had no leeway to listen to Taiwan, it could if Taiwan had proof of transmission happening in their territory, that would give the organization a foothold to confidently say they had scientific proof. Else it would be the same as if China said that they had proof the US originated the viral strain, they would be free to do it but the WHO could not, scientifically speaking, back that declaration because it would have no proof.

Your bias is fixed on blaming the only problem you are willing to accept as possible, and ignoring the one that has been identified long before the pandemic, the weakening of the WHO and their complete inability to contravene the interests of any country (not China in particular) thanks to the completely inappropriate reaction it got for doing its job properly. Have you seen the WHO openly criticizing Japan for not testing appropiately? or bitterly complaining and antagonizing the US for refusing to fund it? No, and according to you that means that the WHO (or its head) must be in the pocket of those countries, or any other that should have been criticized very strongly during this year but had not.

Tedros is not the only person of importance on the WHO and none of the others has said he did something inappropriate, that is because everybody (including those that work with it in the world) that the problem is not one person, not even the organization itself but how it has been forced to prioritize the interests of every country before the global health, so it can barely do its job.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@virusrex

"*the WHO had no leeway to listen to Taiwan, it could if Taiwan had proof of transmission happening in their territory, that would give the organization a foothold to confidently say they had scientific proof.*"

China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan 20th. The WHO head was parroting China's official statements of no human-to-human transmission till then, even though health officials from Taiwan, HK, Macau who had been allowed in China in the first week of January had given them proof that human-to-human transmission was happening inside China.

This proof was a family of clusters in Wuhan which included a husband and his physically disabled wife. The wife could not move so she had obviously not been to the seafood market. Is this proof scientific enough for you?

"Tedros is not the only person of importance on the WHO and none of the others has said he did something inappropriate"

There were enough misgivings and murmurs about Tedros going out of his way to appease China even within WHO. But like in any bureaucratic setup, no one would want to speak out openly on the record against the boss. Many respected organizations like AHF have also called for his resignation, apart from millions of common folks affected by COVID.

"The guy has aimed for an international role and there is nothing that China can give that he would not get by pleasing the world instead."

China has already given him the top job at WHO. To achieve one of these enormously well-paid, tax free, and secure jobs requires years of political manoeuvring. China achieved its aim by having their guy at the helm.

Some information from wikipedia -

During its 140th meeting in January 2017, the Executive Board of the WHO shortlisted Tedros as the front runner out of six candidates through two rounds of secret voting. He collected the most votes during both rounds. Tedros was supported by a bloc of African and Asian countries, including China, which has considerable influence with those members while the US, UK and Canada... lent their support to... the British doctor David Nabarro. One observer called it "a really nasty" election.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The Who like its friend th U.N. are both corrupt piles of putrid, pocket lining, ex washed up politicians, or other useless trash from around the world, who have rubbed shoulders with each other and their friends for years at the meetings these groups have had around the world with each other while making connections and lining their pockets.

It's not really hard to join the dots if you look .

You think the govt run by Abe and his cronies was bad ?

Its got nothing on this high level bunch.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

China confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan 20th.

Irrelevant, they could have confirmed a flying human. That information was NOT officially released to anybody, much less the WHO. So China could have annouced, but the WHO could not, It could only said what it did, that they did not get confirmation from China.

Your "argument" that the WHO is guilty requires that the world suddenly became dumb and believed that China was completely open and that was why the information it choose to give to the WHO was accurate. Obviously that did not happened, every knew China was holding information because that is what China do.

It is irrelevant that China had scientific proof, the one that needed it in order to announce was the WHO.

There were enough misgivings and murmurs about Tedros going out of his way to appease China even within WHO.

More murmurs and rumors? are you going to use them again to "insinuate" when I ask for proof?

So for you it is more credible that a world wide organization made by people that work all their lives to protect the public health in every region of the world was intimidated by someone that has no power, even so that they risk everything they have worked for?

That is nonsense. In reality everybody knows what happened, and why the WHO can or not say things. Yes there is a problem, but it a responsibility of all countries in the world, not one single person that in your imagination holds absolute power to terrorize even his own rivals inside the WHO, enough apparently so he gets a 96% approval rate from the employees of the organization.

And China giving him the job at the WHO is not an argument either, because it is obvious that he is going to lose it, and being the head of the organization is not a goal itself but a means to get other kinds of recognition that he obviously is not going to get. And no, it is NOT "enormously" well paid. That only shows your ignorance about the whole thing. $240,000 a year is not going to make anybody rich.

If his interest was to profit he would be much more likely on the side of the country that give much more resources, that can push him to any position in the world and that at the time was directed by someone addicted to subservience and empty praises. THAT would have given him a much better future, and was the obvious option... if he was just a crook interested in money as you think.

So once again you demonstrate you only want to believe one single thing and work very hard trying to ignore all the evidence that points out to a much more obvious option that you simply don't like. Sorry, instead of searching only for articles that match your bias you should read all around to get a true idea of the situation.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"Your "argument" that the WHO is guilty

My argument is that the WHO is ineffective because the folks at the top are inefficient and have political biases. That is in turn because the WHO leadership appointments have become too politicized. Nothing else can explain a guy like Tedros, who is not even a medical doctor and was involved in Cholera outbreak coverups in his home country, being appointed the head of WHO. It's like appointing Al Capone to head the FBI, only this is much worse since millions are dead.

And yeah, in case you still feign ignorance about Tedros -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-director-general-ethiopia-cholera-outbreaks.html

Above is from NYT well before the current pandemic.

"$240,000 a year is not going to make anybody rich."

It's a lot of money for someone from a third world country and if he is on the right side of China there will be more such plum positions assured in the future.

"Virusrex: It’s always a pleasure to read you dismantling relight-wing conspiracy theories and baseless allegations."

I am neither right wing nor a conspiracy theorist. I myself have criticized the right wing bigot running my own country on this forum. But for someone wearing partisan lenses everything is a matter of black and white or left and right.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

P. Smith

sorry but I should have added "At the Top".

But then if you knew about those organizations then you would also know how they are, the uniformed underlings have been known to commit rapes and theft of Aid in many places they were sent in to help and protect.

And did you also know the former head of UNICEF is in prison for child sex in asia ?

But go right ahead using your big words.

Citation below twice for you but I'm sure if you look around you will find enough info to verify what I mention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dalglish

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5399247/UNICEF-kids-rights-campaigner-jailed-rape-boy-13.html

This is only the tip of the ice berg as far as the WHO and UN go.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

P. Smith would you like some more info

https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/07/29/the-un-corruption-and-scandals-how-did-we-get-here/

Took me less than a minute to google that for you

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

How about this one specific to The WHO

https://www.jpost.com/international/the-who-sick-with-the-uns-corruption-virus-627012

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The Who like its friend th U.N. are both corrupt piles of putrid, pocket lining, ex washed up politicians, or other useless trash from around the world, who have rubbed shoulders with each other and their friends for years at the meetings these groups have had around the world with each other while making connections and lining their pockets.

Yeah sure, that is why all professional associations of health workers in the world share your opinion right?

That is false, just your unqualified opinion not shared by the literal thousands that do work for public health. Everybody knows the huge value the WHO can have in preserving the health around the world, and particularly knows that it has been defanged for a decade now and made less and less powerful every year without any solution on sight. The ones that work really hard trying to blame the WHO for everything are the politicians that now can get away with acting against the public interest, but the doctors, nurses, social workers, etc. that are on the field still depend very strongly on the information that the WHO can share, which is less and less. Its nonsensical to expect the WHO to act as if it had all the power in the world

My argument is that the WHO is ineffective because the folks at the top are inefficient and have political biases. That is in turn because the WHO leadership appointments have become too politicized.

So a human organization have usual human problems? wow.

You are moving the goalposts, one thing is that an international organization that was chastised repeatedly for doing the right thing can no longer keep doing it because now countries stop cooperating at the first hint that something against their interests is coming, so now it HAS to become politized; another completely different thing is that one person has supernatural control of the whole organization of extremely prepared professionals, including political rivals, and responds only to one of the countries that supported him. Specially when it is completely obvious that doing it would go against his own best interests.

If you knew the first thing about the WHO you would not be surprised that someone that is not a doctor can be at the top. It employs a huge lot of people that organize and administrate a lot of activities. A doctor has no special preparation to do that. His job is political, not medical.

And no matter how much you keep ignoring the terribly obvious reasons why the WHO changed completely its efficiency after 2009, it is still the most likely explanation that do not depend on magical overlords taking control of the world organization without even hints of dissent all for a miserable salary that could be made several times over "serving" the egotistical leader of the country that gave 10 times the money to the WHO than China did.

YOU don't see any other explanation because you are in denial of the much more likely ones, that is a problem with your attitude, not with the WHO.

And yeah, in case you still feign ignorance about Tedros -

So accusations from a political rival now are "evidence"? I though you said he was so formidable that he could terrorize a whole organization to do his bidding and make everybody betray their vocations?

Everybody that has a big responsibility will be accused of doing things wrong, sometimes they will, that is irrelevant to prove that they also did something irrational and fantastic that you think they also did. Specially for a terribly low salary for a post that you thought was the pinnacle of his career and the most he was supposed to aspire.

In reality for someone that moves and do anything that is asked for money $240,000 is nothing, it was just your ignorance that made you think he was making fortunes. In reality if he was only interested in the money he would have not hesitated to oppose and critizice China, and half of Europe and Japan, even if that would mean zero collaboration with the WHO from that on, because that would be much worse for the WHO and for the pandemic, but it would look really nice for him and would have landed him actual positions where he would get quickly rich.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That is false, just your unqualified opinion not shared by the literal thousands that do work for public health

Wrong, not just my unqualified opinion at all, just keep using your big words and ignore the reality staring you in the face, its worked up until now hasnt it?

I posted some citations

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Wrong, not just my unqualified opinion at all, just keep using your big words and ignore the reality staring you in the face, its worked up until now hasnt it?

None of your sources support your unqualified opinion. People's opinion about things already debunked even here (such as what the WHO can or not say without proof) are not enough to deny that in general all health workers of the world that use the collaboration that the WHO offers do not consider it "useless trash" but the contrary.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sorry for the change of account, I am using a shared computer right now and did not notice someone else was logged to the site.

-virusrex

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Virusex

In reality for someone that moves and do anything that is asked for money $240,000 is nothing, it was just your ignorance that made you think he was making fortunes.

Its not the salary they get over the top of the table, its what goes on in the background and under the table and the connections they make and the things they can get done simply by having that title.

Also all the shall we say Fringe benefits, and he doesnt actually have to pack his stuff and move it anywhere by himself, surely you know how things work right?

He has be getting rich quickly ( Even in his old job ) and has been for quite some time, he also plays in the right club with the right people and has the right friends in the right places. .

Your friend Tedros is well known for being a pocket liner.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Its not the salary they get over the top of the table, its what goes on in the background and under the table and the connections they make and the things they can get done simply by having that title.

That is is exactly the point. My comment is responding to a inane argument that the position was the final goal because of its huge salary, It is not. And if the objective is to get connections and have a lot of deals under the table it would be much safer and profitable to be against China than with them. After all it is obvious that he will become extremely unpopular for not confronting China, if he did the opposite the WHO would have been cut off completely and would be even less useful during the pandemic, but he would have ended in a much better position to keep profiting indefinitely.

He has been accused of everything, that is not the same thing of being proved so, specially with the politics of developing countries where it is actually difficult to find anybody of importance that has never been accused of anything. Even of completely unbelievable things.

And again, it still makes no sense that he can make the whole world organization full of rivals do exactly as he wished without any opposition in the open, even from people making their life career about protecting public health, it is fantasy to think he could do it without the understanding and cooperation of the whole organization. The other explanation (that everybody in public health already knows what the WHO cannot do) is still much more realistic. Also, again, where are the quotes of me supporting China?

and once again, sorry for the accidental account usurping.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

What makes you think he is the only one who took the dirty moeny form china or benefitted or will benefit, or has benefitted, some time the offer goes right through the whole place and everyone gets some of the action,

You havent direclty spoken the words in a sentence you support china but the general tone of your posts seem to reflect your defence of turdros and china, so is that clear enough for you.

But please take a broader view on how corruption works and is rife throughout these organisations, form voting ther friends into office and employing there old co workers to taking back handers under the table, to club memberships cars holidays expense accounts, shopping for the family it often comes in various shapes and forms. Its not always direct cash where everyone can see it. He may also have shares in some particular compnaies that get awarded contracts . Just examples and things that do happen. No one is squeky clean.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What makes you think he is the only one who took the dirty moeny form china or benefitted or will benefit, or has benefitted, some time the offer goes right through the whole place and everyone gets some of the action,

That is moving the goalposts, so now China is not bribing one person but the whole organization? What is next, that China is bribing every single doctor, nurse, social worker, etc. that works on the field as well as anybody that has anything to do with public health and that is why the WHO enjoy such a widespread support? Sorry but it is still much more likely that you got manipulated into blaming the scapegoat.

You havent direclty spoken the words in a sentence you support china but the general tone of your posts seem to reflect your defence of turdros and china, so is that clear enough for you.

Where? where exactly? when I critizice China for being secretive and irresponsible? Sorry if the reality does not conform to your all-encompassing conspiracy but my point is only that your opinion is demonstrably wrong about the WHO. In any case YOU have been much more supportive of China, deflecting a lot of the responsibility they carry about the pandemic into the WHO that is mostly a powerless organization since many years ago.

And no, a broader view on corruption still means you are much more likely to be wrong. For someone that is simply corrupt (as you think the whole WHO is) there is no merit in choosing one single country against the whole world. Much more money and deals can be done by blaming the country that is so obviously in the wrong and closing rows with their opponents, because those also include rich megalomaniacs that rewards handsomely anybody showing willingness to do their dirty work.

The only real reason why the WHO would prefer to do that is to beg from information from the criminals that originated the pandemic in the first place, that is the only thing that China had but the world did not. Money is not.

Wait, now you are going to tell me that China is bribing every single person in the world but you, right? and that is why nobody that disobeys it could be corrupt anywhere else.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Virusex

The WHO and UN are well known as having corrupt people at all levels. please read the articles I posted earlier or try searching around yourself to gain some enlightenment on the subject, and by the way I did not say everyone at those organizations is corrupt as you try to imply.

I have never been supportive of China , you are completely wrong once again !

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The WHO and UN are well known as having corrupt people at all levels. please read the articles I posted earlier or try searching around yourself to gain some enlightenment on the subject,

And how does that contradict the fact is it is obviously much better for corrupt people to be contrary to China and have the world open to their machinations instead of being a loyal dog and get absolutely nothing because of political funds bankruptcy? Again, corruption is not a believable reason to choose the worst partner, but begging for epidemiological and medical information is, because at that point China was the only country that had it, and it was urgently necessary for everybody else.

and by the way I did not say everyone at those organizations is corrupt as you try to imply.

But that is absolutely necessary for your comment to make any sense, public health officials as well as professional organizations of health workers (doctors, nurses societies, etc.) around the world are all generally on board about the huge role of the WHO and how it tremendously help the health effort in their countries. Either the whole public health world is corrupt and supports the WHO back deals or you are just mistaken. Saying this world wide conspiracy is not the case helps proving you wrong.

I have never been supportive of China , you are completely wrong once again !

You have been much more supportive than me, "the general tone of your posts" continuously tries to shift blame from them to the WHO, even when it is completely obvious that the organization has no power left to contradict any country from which collaboration is necessary. That is a huge lot of support.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The WHO and UN are well known as having corrupt people at all levels

Notice how the only group of people claiming that are those who belong to a single political party in a single country? The same group whose own countrymen just declared as losers?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My only clear memory of the WHO is those weeks in January and February when it was obvious to the whole world that we were facing a pandemic in all but name.

The WHO refused to call it, again and again deliberating, clearly dragging their feet, while WURS spiraled out of control. Why? Naturally suspicion fell upon China, and Tedros as the mouthpiece of the WHO. There were no other obvious culprits around.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Starngerland which country and which political party, I will bet you are wrong once more, did you just assume my political party a n d my nationality ? wow double assumptions .....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Edit = Strangerland, misspelt your name excuse me.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Starngerland which country and which political party, I will bet you are wrong once more, did you just assume my political party a n d my nationality ?

Um what? Did you not read my post? Unless you're the representative of a group, your post doesn't make sense in reply to mine:

"Notice how the only group of people claiming that are those who belong to a single political party in a single country?"

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Notice how the only group of people claiming that are those who belong to a single political party in a single country"

It seems viewing everything with partisan lenses is your full time preoccupation. The WHO is essential and has done some good work in the past, and I don't believe that US withdrawing from WHO was a wise decision, but if you are unaware of the corruption at these places you need to get a reality check.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/18/senior-world-health-organization-official-accused-of-using-ebola-cash-to-pay-for-girlfriends-flight-corruption-racism-sexism

I am not even touching upon the current DG at WHO Tedros about whom much has been written about and alleged.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites