Skip to comments.The World Harm Organization (U.N.'s WHO displaying the symptoms of its politically corrupt sponsor)
Posted on 02/23/2005 11:25:38 PM PST by nickcarraway
These days nothing the United Nations touches turns to gold. Even for specialized agencies that theoretically could do good work.
When the SARS epidemic was hop scotching across the globe, the World Health Organization (WHO) purported to be in the forefront of efforts to develop treatments and find a cure for the disease. But the WHO was reluctant to send staffers to Taiwan, hard-hit due to its extensive commercial and economic ties with China. For the WHO, politics was more important than health. A better name for the WHO might be the World Harm Organization.
Taipei is not a member of the WHO because most nations, including the U.S., formally consider it to be part of China. And China objected to any WHO teams traveling to Taiwan. The mainland Chinese government promised to care for residents across the Taiwan Strait -- as it was lying to its own people about the scope of the SARS epidemic at home. With no thanks to the WHO or Beijing, Taiwan avoided a disastrous outbreak.
Unfortunately, like most U.N. agencies, the WHO's activities have long been captive to a highly political agenda. For instance, earlier this year the organization claimed that a third of childhood deaths in Europe were due to environmental causes.
It's a preposterous claim. European analysts Jaap Hanekamp and Julian Morris observe: "few of these deaths were actually caused by problems generally associated with 'the environment.' Out of 100,000 total deaths, 75,000 were caused by accidents -- e.g. drowning, fires, falls and other hazards of childhood. Of the remaining 25,000 deaths, nearly all of them in poor countries such as Turkey and Russia, most were caused by a combination of dirty water, poor sanitation, malaria and indoor air pollution."
But the facts didn't stop the WHO. It was particularly upset about the presumed threat of global warming, which, it claimed, would result in "more widespread and severe" deaths due to diarrhea, floods, malaria, and nutritional problems. Yet, Hanekamp and Morris archly observe, "No scientific evidence was offered to support these claims -- perhaps because none exists."
NEVERTHELESS, THE WORLD HEALTH organization is advancing its so-called Children's Environment and Health Action Plan for Europe which, naturally, advocated more regulations over technology, such as fossil fuels, pesticides, and plastics. The result will be to make us all poorer, yet wealth is one of the most important determinants of health. Wealthier societies are better able to care for those who are most vulnerable to illness.
For instance, the pesticide DDT is one of the most effective mechanisms to kill mosquitoes, which spread malaria. Cheaper energy lowers the cost of producing food. Important medical devices are made from plastics. Under the guise of promoting the "precautionary principle," the WHO is ignoring problems that today kill millions while fretting over worst-case scenarios for the future that are unlikely ever to occur. Simply providing clean water and improving sanitation would do more to help Third World peoples than do most of the WHO's highly publicized initiatives.
The WHO has organized the "Roll Back Malaria" program, along with UNICEF, the World Bank, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Unlike global warming, malaria actually does kill. Yet the WHO has been spending scarce resources on two drugs which have been found to be no longer effective in Africa. Other choices are available, but so far the WHO bureaucracy hasn't bothered to adjust.
Moreover, complain Robert Bate and Richard Tren, respectively a British and a South African health care analyst, "Roll Back Malaria partners are unwilling to fund interventions that work but upset environmentalists, such as indoor insecticide spraying." Although widespread outdoor use of DDT years ago did have adverse environmental consequences, poor nations throughout Africa and South Asia are literally begging for assistance in undertaking carefully targeted indoor spraying.
IT'S HARD TO KNOW IF anyone died because the WHO chose to kowtow to Beijing rather than cooperate with Taipei's advanced health care system. So far the WHO's "Children Action Plan" hasn't had any ill effect since it has not been implemented. Failing to fund effective anti-malaria measures does kill. Equally important, organization missteps involving the treatment of AIDS has harmed untold numbers of poor people in poor countries.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic has swept Africa, infecting tens of millions of people. The numbers overwhelm, leading to a sense of helplessness. There's only one reason far more people haven't died: the incredible pharmaceutical advances over the last two decades. But the WHO actually has impeded distribution of effective medications.
Treating AIDS is one of the organization's primary responsibilities. Its "3 by 5" initiative is supposed to treat three million people by 2005. Yet last year the WHO was forced to remove several foreign copies of patented AIDS drugs by the Indian firms Cipla and Ranbaxy from its list of pre-qualified medicines.
As millions have suffered and died of HIV/AIDS political activists worldwide have attacked the drugmakers. Yet without research-driven pharmaceutical companies, we would live in the pre-1987 world, when there were no treatments for AIDS and the diagnosis was a death sentence. Rather than being willing to pay the price for innovative new drugs, the WHO has promoted foreign knock-offs. Ideology above effectiveness, the agency said yet again.
It turns out that the copies couldn't be certified as biologically equivalent or safe. Thus, they endangered the people who were taking them. The inadequate drugs also risked encouraging the AIDS virus to mutate into strains resistant to all medicines. Moreover, diverting treatment dollars into inferior pharmaceuticals reduced the financial incentive for drug companies to develop newer and better products.
It's an appalling record, one of "Bad decisions, missed deadlines and bogus AIDS drugs," complains Waldemar Ingdahl, Director of Eudoxa, a Swedish think tank: "Africans and the poor should not be treated with bad medicine."
The WHO needs a thorough overhaul. Director-General Lee Jong-wook, chosen less than a year ago, needs to assert control over an organization gone badly astray. Most important, it must choose good health over bad politics.
The world faces enormous health care challenges. It's time the WHO lived up to its promise, promoting health rather than harm.
<< For the WHO, politics [Is] more important than health. A better name for the WHO might be the World Harm Organization. >>
Notice it has just concluded a totallty fraudulent junket/"conference" in Vietnam whose multi-Million Dollar cost was of course billed as usual to the US Taxpayer and whose outcome was to promulgate the absolutely bogus assertion that the world is at risk from a form of animal [Bird] 'flu that is at worst almost impossible to catch and has no virus contageous to Humans!
Gutless, lying, looting, thieving, false-science-promulgating, effectively-mass-murdering Annan-Crime-Family-Member gangster bastards!
I'm no fan of anything to do with the UN. But your view of H5N1 as being a nonexistent threat is one of the most ignorant viewpoints I've read in FR over the last 5 years.
Do a Google search on "avian flu", do some actual research on the subject, and then come back and tell us that there is no threat. You'd be the first person to do so. Let's see it, you who knows all.
To those of us who have been watching the mutation of H5N1 into the CURRENTLY HUMAN CONTAGIOUS PATHOGEN that it has become, your uninformed bravado rings quite hollow. It has a mortality rate of over 80%, and has so far been discovered in over 50 nations. Thousands of misdiagnosed deaths have been attributed to this disease so far. If we're REALLY LUCKY it won't become full blown this winter. (That means it will do so next year in all probability.)
<< [Yours] ... is one of the most ignorant viewpoints ...
your uninformed bravado .... you who knows all ... >>
Given the invective with which your reaction is so liberally laced you'll forgive me I have no doubt if I don't look for either objectivity or much in the way of veracity in the rest of your remarks?
<< .... the mutation of H5N1 into the CURRENTLY HUMAN CONTAGIOUS PATHOGEN that it has become >>
That's an assertion for which you'd be hard pressed to produce any evidence.
A possible mother-daughter case in Thailand? [Where the latest cases occurred less than one mile from where I presently sit]
I put it to you that my post displays less ignorance, less uniformed bravado, less of a know-it-all attitude -- and a ton more veracity -- than that which follows it.
All of this notwithstanding my somewhat crude description of the lying, looting, thieving, false-science-promulgating, effectively-mass-murdering, gangster bastards who comprise WHO [With whch, since the 1960s, I have from time to time worked] and also notwithsatanding the layman's language I employed in stating the fact there is, thus far, no "HUMAN CONTAGIOUS PATHOGEN" associated with the avian flu'.
We are in agreement that there might well be one in the offing -- but it ain't happened yet!
Take care -- B A
No [Proven] Human to "HUMAN CONTAGIOUS PATHOGEN," that is.
that's what hastily expressing ignorant viewpoints based in uninformed bravado will do to one who knows it all -- and was up past his bedtime -- I guess.
The best -- B A
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.