Previous thread here
In response to revere’s most excellent series of posts on Effect Measure on the WHO I wrote the following response which I thought should be posted here as well for discussion.
Revere,
This is not just the best damned piece you ever wrote. History will look upon it as probably the single most important editorial on the direction that the global search for solutions to pandemic influenza should take. Thank you.
So where do we go from here? You have drawn our attention to the distinction between the WHO as an increasingly ineffective institution, and the staff of the WHO (and the CDC and other institutions) as including some talented and devoted good folks who believe as we do in transparency, honesty, co-operation, etc.
At the same time, there is a large group of regular contributors on various avian flu blogs who have shown the ability to deal with issues fairly, responsibly, giving criticism and/or praise where either is due, but also able to harness tremendous creativity and dynamism, responding to events and data 24/7 at speeds only limited by bandwidth. This phenomenon is as unprecedented as the avian flu virus itself. We call it ‘the hive mind’ at the fluwiki.
These two groups have fewer differences than some might think.
Each must now reach out to the other.
Scientists must learn to overcome their Pavlovian horror of talking on equal terms to ‘laymen’. The media and policymakers must learn to judge information, analyses, ideas, based on the credibility of the thought process, not just credentials, names, and official positions.
Because the constraints within the WHO are real, we must acknowledge the need to protect individuals who, by reason of their affiliations, are not always able to disclose ALL that they know. We must honor that by making it comfortable for them to disclose however much they can, anonymously or otherwise. When they say “I cannot tell you that.” instead of questioning their motives or harassing them for elitism or whatever, we must say thank you and move on.
The incessant badgering of ‘experts’ on some blogs, irrespective of merit, must stop. Each piece of information or analysis must be judged, criticized, on the strength of the case under consideration, not on personality or prior affiliation. We value information. We want good data in whatever form we can get it; it doesn’t have to come from WHO official statements. But we must learn to honor and not abuse both the data and the messenger(s).
At the same time, the WHO, if it doesn’t want to become increasingly irrelevant, must step up to the challenge. The tragic necessity to find a new Director General and the almost universal recognition of the inadequacy of the WHO alert phase system have created space for new thinking. They must grasp this opportunity and use it well.
The DG has a fair amount of discretion as to what constitutes information that should be routinely disseminated for the public good. In recognition of the increasingly important role of non-state actors, including internet sites that play an increasingly influential role in public education, and many minor NGO’s doing important work on the ground in underdeveloped countries, he/she should make it standard practice to publicly reveal all epidemiological information, however incomplete, at the same time as such information is provided to states for public health purposes. Exceptions to this should be made on a case by case basis and with explanation.
Individual scientist’s rights to first publication of data, including viral sequences, can be honoured by compulsory and provisional acknowledgements whenever such data is used, until such time as peer reviewed publication can happen. This obstacle is not insurmountable; editors of science journals must perform their public duty to ensure such a step is possible and is honoured.
Objections to publication on grounds of bioterrorism risk should (if not done already) be evaluated by a small panel of experts drafted from outside of the WHO, perhaps from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. Such panel can provide a general risk assessment with regards to avian and pandemic flu, outlining principles governing disclosure policies, to be used as guideline by the WHO.
The most important over-riding principle should be disclosure unless there is a case to the contrary. That is, member states must voluntarily agree to full disclosure in principle unless otherwise stated. Once such permission is given, the onus should be on member states to raise items of exclusion and the rationale behind them on a case by case basis.
State sovereignty is not as solid as leaders would like to believe; the global movements of jobs and money are well-recognized examples of erosion of state power which paradoxically often bring the best hope of prosperity for countries. It is past time for nations to exercise sovereignty-lite. History will show that Westphalia-Lite is well under way; those who attempt to stop historical trends risk death by irrelevance, as the Soviet giant discovered in one short season in 1989.
Finally, political leaders within individual countries must recognize and admit their impotence in the face of this pandemic threat. There is no shame or dishonour in doing so; not if they do it NOW.
By standing up and admitting it, they will win the support of the core group of people on whom they will have to depend to deal with this threat: those scientists, public health officials, healthcare workers, community responders and volunteers, and the concerned mums and dads who have wandered the corridors of online chat-space in the wee hours to make sense of the situation.
We already know that government is powerless to solve the whole problem.
We only ask that you exhibit leadership by telling the truth.
THAT is the only place from which one can draft in the incredible and diverse energy needed to mitigate this biggest threat the world has ever known.
The whole world IS watching . . . and holding its breath.
Serious pieces, worth reviewing in full.
WHO, part I: 300 years old at birth
WHO, part II: Westphalian public health
WHO, part III: the world changes
Well spoken, Anon_22. My only contention would have to be with this statement:
“Because the constraints within the WHO are real, we must acknowledge the need to protect individuals who, by reason of their affiliations, are not always able to disclose ALL that they know. We must honor that by making it comfortable for them to disclose however much they can, anonymously or otherwise.”
By disclosing and perhaps publicizing the constraints within the WHO, perhaps it would be possible to one day, have these constraints lifted. Beside political motivation, personal advancement, etc., there really is no reason why the WHO could not act in the best interest of all of the countries of the world. Arrogance and egotism aside, of course. What exactly would you define the constraints as being?
Snowhound,
You’ve already demonstrated the conflict:
in the best interest of all of the countries of the world
And exactly when have “all of the countries of the world” ever agreed on that? Hmmm?
I guess the world powers do continue to make concessions, if they deem it is in the best interest of their country to do so. I hate to say it, but for most, economics is what motivates their political agenda more than anything else. China is on the verge of making it into the “mainstream” in many ways, and I think they realize this, thus their disclosures? Americans are continually “despised” throughout the world, due to our continued arrogance and proselytizing, but most countries still listen, as they know it is in the best interest of their countries to do so, economically speaking, and they try to accomodate us. We use more oil and a multitude of other resources than any other country in the world, thus they “HAVE” to listen to us, if the want to continue to have a mandate in world politics. They don’t have to like us, in order to do business with us. If the countries of the world, realize that it is in their best interests: financially, politically and socially to do what is best for all, then and only then, can change begin to happen. It certainly doesn’t have to be because they want to..
I think the “end of the beginning” came about because revere has a pretty good idea that the H5N1 in North Sumatra was a wild type lceavage site, is amantadine resistant, and produced a higher concentration of H5N1 in the nose and throat, probably via PB2 E627K, yet WHO wrote an Indonesia update that ignored all of the above and focused on no reassortment, no change in the receptor binding main (positions 226 and 228 as the “important” changes), and the sensitivity to Tamiflu (as detailed here}.
Thus, revere could see in real time how WHO was taking its most direct avenue for providing scientific updates (their situation updates) and was simply posting propaganda for a gullible public and MSM reporters.
However, the gig is up, as indoicated in the New York Times on Sunday, with more to come.
Niman-
Will they be printing more from your initial interviews or have they returned for info on a new topic?
The is a significant amount of interest from a significant number of sources,
Niman-
We are all so appreciative of your earnestness in this quest.
There is much more to tell, some of which is instantly verifiable. There is this quote from Klaus Stohr:
“While the test results need to be confirmed by a World Health Organization laboratory, the Geneva-based agency believes the results are probably accurate, the head of the WHO’s global influenza program told The Canadian Press. “That is our working assumption,” Dr. Klaus Stohr said in an interview from Geneva late Wednesday.
“These cases occurred in the vicinity where animal disease was reported . . . (and) the laboratory is a laboratory which has a track record of collaborating with WHO. The laboratory results and the clinical course (of disease) is compatible.”
Test results from a number of other related suspect cases was pending and might be available as early as Thursday, Stohr said.
“There are two large families and quite a few of those family members are sick. Two at least are positive. And the rest of the family members are being investigated,” he said.
“We have to wait until the laboratory tests are finalized.”
All of what Klaus said was accurate, however, he didn’t say that the two families were related and most or all of the sick had been at a family gathering in late December. When Stohr made his commets two cases in the first family were confirmed H5N1 positive. The index case was dead and his older sister was near death as was his younger sister. All three had arrived in Van unconcious and they never recovered. The youngest sibling dd revover, but his still considered negative.
In addition to the 4 patients from one family, there were 10 more from the other family who were hospitalized. Two were in the ICU and were confirmed H5NB1 positive. The other 8 were not.
Moreover, when 2 cousins from yet another family were hospitalized and both tested positive, the WHO update said no other family members had symptoms. The “family members” were limited to the immediate family. By then two of the first cousins were already confirmed, and three of their cousins were confirmed and dead.
The number of cousins form other families continued to grow.
Snowhound1,
The constraints are public. They are in the structure of the whole system, as clearly illucidated by the excellent series written by revere. This series (links by Dem at 19:01) is required reading IMHO :-)
annon 22. Although I might not agree with all of the specifics, it is an excellent and accurate summary of events. Thanks!!
Thanks, Tom.
This is an ongoing dialogue. We MUST engage with the people inside the WHO, however unusual that notion might seem.
Question posted at EM “Anon 22, what criteria do YOU think are suitable to withold information to the public?”
What I would like to see is that the same information that is given to states should be given to the public, period, with the only exception being possible bioterrorism concerns and those only if clearly identified by independent bioterrorism experts, and not used as a blanket excuse for non-disclosure.
The justification for that is that states are no longer the only nor the most effective vehicle to combat this potentially catastrophic global problem. Non-state actors such as online resources and NGO’s are serving increasingly important functions. Any information that governments need to know for public health purposes, we need to know too, not for the private use of any of us, but for the purpose of disseminating clear current public health information and advice for the millions who already trust us more than the WHO or their governments.
The WHO/UN/member states need to decide whether we, the online community, are worth their trust in utilizing the information in a responsible manner. My own observation is that they no longer have a choice, if they would stop and consider the full implications of a pandemic in the near future that has a fair chance of a double-digit CFR while killing the most treasured and productive members of humanity. They, we, the whole world, need to set aside differences and use every tool available
At the same time, we must exercise self-restraint, to win and retain that trust. We must be ready to police ourselves, be vigilant against trolls, be respectful in our disagreements, be ready to correct erroneous science, or set the record straight on conspiracy theories.
The WHO has been around for a while. We are the new kids on the block. Speaking for myself only, I am willing to defer to their experience and consider ourselves as very junion partners in this venture.
The collective knowledge of people inside the WHO is not to be idly dismissed. We are willing to learn from them. They need to be willing to teach us by sharing openly.
annon 22. Agreed. So when can we expect Dick Thompson or other public relations representatives of the WHO, to make themselves avaliable on flu wiki to discuss the issues considering the fact that in two to three months, there may be nothing left to discuss?
Tom,
Impatient as ever. :-)
I want that to happen yesterday. But we may have to wait for a period of time and see what happens next. Watch what they do, not what they say, would be my motto.
annon 22. We are both patient people. I just ‘keep my powder dry while I am being patient.
Hell will freeze over before they avail themselves to flu wiki…you want to know why? …because they can’t debate the science because they have no science to debate.
I have spent nine years (it almost hurts to say it) chasing agencies. Believe me, it is quite a thing to debate science with talking points and spin on the other side of the table.
The problem is, they don’t disclose this at the start of the meeting but only after two hours of complete frustration.
A scientific debate should stand alone but it never does with agencies…they never have science to discuss.
Sooo, if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, things have gotten so bad that the WHO is expected to make a “deathbed conversion”? I guess it is one of those “good news/bad news” things. I am not comforted. But if I could see the sequence that kills me, that would be something.
Hi Medical Maven. The truth be told…I’m not sure they even know how to read a sequence in terms of virulence or transmissibility. That is why they can repeatedly make the statement…no significant mutations in the samples while not giving them to us for a second opinion.
Tom,
I understand what you say about agencies, that’s why we must bypass them.
I don’t need to debate with agencies. I want to have continuing dialogue with individuals who are willing to talk to us. Because this is a drastic departure from their normal habitat, I am willing to be extra patient and extra courteous. Amicable dialogue may not always be possible, but we must give it our best shot and judge each situation on its own merit.
annon 22. Do you mean individuals like MM et al who are willing to talk or are you talking about agency anonymouses that are willing to talk off the record?
The problem so far on flu wiki, is that the only agency representatives coming on flu wiki as anonymouses, are ‘plants’ to defend the party line without you knowing they are from the agency.
I don’t care whether people are anonymous or not. I don’t need to know and we may never know if some of them are from official agencies. Fluwiki by now has built up a substantial store of collective brain power. If we exercise that brain power with diligence and integrity, then it doesn’t matter if someone is a plant or not. They will be judged by the merit of their discourse, just like everyone else.
We may have rowdy days. That’s par for the course. And a lot of us will have to work extra hard. But it will be worth it.
annon 22. I honestly appreciate the good sense on all sides of flu wiki. I don’t think there has been any real problems other than a few trolls and the odd statement taken the wrong way, usually because of language differences.
I could easily assemble a team here that would not only stand beside the best scientists in the world but assemble a team that could solve the existing problems with the WHO and by extension sovereign regulatory authorities who use the WHO as a model and excuse for inaction.
There is a lot that could be done to mitigate the pandemic that I believe we are going to be in the middle of in six months…
…it’s just hard to see the truth when blinded by self-reflection.
If you want a temporary e-mail box for the purpose of the exchange of information with the Wikie and you are from WHO, I would be happy to set you up for free with a secure email box not traceable to you. I can do that. I will monitor the box to make sure it is not abused in any way. I have complete web sites that are blank with band with, ready to go, and an unlimited ability to setup an unlimited number of email boxes. (PS I am NOT a spammer. My corporation is just a bunch of computer professionals.) We design, host, troubleshoot, create databases for MYSQL, etc. Use me if you need me. My skill is not unique in the world. You know my posts on this site. I am for real.
bump
Hell will freeze over before they avail themselves to flu wiki
Let’s talk somewhere else. Or let’s have the ideas without the people. Or both.
I’m ready for the talking.
If we think for worse+soon now, then we have time to think for the other scenarios.
How much of a difference can we make together?
bump - a must read
What blocks cooperation?
How can we make such a cooperation happen, facilitate it?
lugon – at 06:55
that’s a wonderful post and deserves its own anchor.
DemFromCT - at 07:35, thanks - a deep honour, wow! :)
Now, how do we recognise damage and route around it, just like the internet (and life) is supposed to do?
Dude Thanks.
Tom DVM, I can see your points and understand your frustration with agencies including WHO. I know they are based on past(and present) negative experiences.
If communication adheres to the present status quo, then we gain nothing. If we’re willing to be a little open-minded and positive about the possibilities the chance for open dialogue and communication of vital information is there. The chance, not the certainty- but then again in life, what is certain?
What I like to tell my kids when they feel discouraged: ‘when you FEEL like you can’t, SAY I’ll try- then do so. If you don’t try, then it surely will never happen.
If we can’t set aside remembered battles and slights, strive to move forward in a more positive frame of mind we may just be dooming ourselves to fail before we start and that would be a real shame. I’m saying this with the utmost of respect for you and everyone else struggling with this (I’m struggling too).
lugon at 10:03
Very well stated! I once asked Dr. Niman if there was anyway to circumvent the GenBank. At that time, I think he felt like he was between the rock and the hard place. Here in the South, if you get no response from the front door, go to the back door. gina
anon_22, from a concerned mom- thanks for working so hard at keeping us all informed and for being a catalyst for positive change.
MaMa. Thanks. I will keep an open mind…actually I do keep an open mind at all times…first rule of being a scientist.
You must remember than individuals within these organizations are very, very comfortable…and therefore are at times very good at telling you what you would like to hear while doing absolutely nothing…the status quo is always very, very very comfortable and anything else is the scary unknown.
They are reading this so I am inviting Dick Thompson to prove me wrong. Come on flu wiki Dick, you are a media relations person, we will have a principled scientific discussion of the issues.
Ok, here is a realistic (because it just happened in a couple of situations, one the US VA and the other a supermarket chain) way information could be made available and no one really is to blame.
A laptop computer with the sequence data is stolen from airport baggage. The data, like a few million social security numbers and names before it, finds its way to public domain. Someone gets a stern lecture, but because it was a theft, there is no breach of any security agreement, only damage control - and relief for the public faces of the WHO and CDC to become honest without admitting wrong-doing.
Not to encourage such actions <nod-nod, wink-wink> because of ethics, but ethics seem to have a relative measurement these days. I’d call that serendipity. (my back door method, gina!)
yes… I remember someone calling for the hackers to hack the secret WHO-database. (“where are they when you need them”) WHO also has this password protected global atlas database where outbreaks are reported, not only the sequences.
But some countries maybe won’t report outbreaks if they can’t be sure that WHO keeps it confidential.
anonymous.
I would assume that most countries have had blunt assessments provided to them indicating the consequences of withholding information.
I think those that are sitting on the sequences are sitting on them because they can (God complex)…nothing more nothing less.
It may be that the least informed and concerned about a pandemic are members of various regulatory agencies…as long as there is someone else to blame if things go wrong…no problem.
Sometimes the professional classes have a tendency to be fatalistic and that short-circuits any action necessary for significant change. They think that they have sized-up the situation accurately and are overly-confident of their predictive abilities. You combine that attitude with the “iron ricebowl” that their job provides them, and that is a very tough nut to crack.
Yes, law is a funny thing when it comes to public figures.
If I shot someone in the face with a shotgun, I doubt an “I’m sorry” would keep me from just punishment, even if it was an accident. If I lie to a committee or withhold evidence, it is perjury, not “executive privilege”.
Too bad laws and agreements don’t truly protect all equally, or serve the public interest or need. Where did that Constitution I had to learn in school go to since the 1970′s? And when did the UN and WHO and CDC become protectors of state secrets rather than national and international vehicles for cooperation and safety? Maybe we deserve a pandemic to clean house if our systems are this broken, and H5N1 is actually a natural anti-body.(philosophical and rhetorical reference only - I want my kids to have lives too)
Maybe someone from these groups reading this will think about that themselves and do the right thing, despite laws or agreements. Pandora did leave Hope in the box.
TRay, MM anonymous. Let me put it to you another way. I think we would agree that the corporation’s view of ethics and integrity is a little different today than it was five years ago…at least in the USA…
…well, some of the lessons learned by Enron etc. have not yet been learned by regulatory authorities around the world.
The withheld sequences are from countries which have already acknowledge H5N1 infections (in birds and humans).
I’m right there with you on that, Tom. As long as they see no accountability, they have no need to fear reprisal and can work as they please. And we have to live with the consequences.
If you think I am unreasonable or unfair to those in authority…how about this.
“Dr. Gerberding is either ignorant — in which case she should be fired — or she is being deliberately misleading — in which case she should be indicted. She is delivering public-health information which is simply false.”
“By conveying the notion that useless measures are effective, she is undermining realistic efforts to prepare for a possible pandemic. She and her political bosses may ultimately be responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.”
Greenhammer on His(her)blog today.
Dr. N, I wish I had the power to help you more than trying to influence though with emotion. Don’t let up and thanks for all your openesss and efforts. - Tom (Not DVM)
Tom DVM at 12:07: Yes, I saw that crap today from her about a vaccine being available in several months after a pandemic has started. I sneered and then laughed. What else can you do? The whole damn bunch from top to bottom, worldwide, are so smug and disingenuous that it makes you to want to go on a rampage.
I think it is also important to emphasize that we do not in any way encourage or condone illegal behavior, and that any individual including contributors to this forum will take full responsibility for his/her own actions in whatever juridiction the person resides or is subject to.
For those without powerpoint software, teh phylogenetic tree can be seen here. The two human sequences from Indonesia are circled in red.
Any name that does not include a species is a human sequence. Tree also has human sequences from Turkey and China which are not in GenBank (or the public side of Los Alamos).
This figure comes from a presentation by China’s Ministry of Health.
And any post that in the opinion of moderators knowingly incites illegal behavior will be deleted and the contributor may be banned from further posting in this forum.
For the phylogentic tree, some names use abbreviations Ck for chicken or Dk for duck. The full power point presentation (which has much more detail on sequences from China, can be viewed at the University of Washington site.
anon_22: You need to name names otherwise we won’t know what is acceptable language. I hope the hyperbole on my part was not construed as anything other than that. But please let me know and each individual know. Name names.
Hi annon 22. You are going to have to explain your posts at 12:18 and 12:14.
I can’t figure out what you are saying…others may not be able to as well.
I think she is referring to the fact that it was “hinted” at: hacking into certain data bases..
Tom DVM, ‘You must remember than individuals within these organizations are very, very comfortable…and therefore are at times very good at telling you what you would like to hear while doing absolutely nothing…the status quo is always very, very very comfortable and anything else is the scary unknown’.
I know and I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It’s the nature of organizations and goverment agencies to want to stick with their agenda and rules. To do what best suits their own purpose. OTOH organizations and agencies are made up of individuals who may speak out if given the right opportunity and venue. Look at Ilia Capua(hope I got her name right, the scientist who defied the rules to make some sequences public). There are more people like her out there. Let’s not drive them away with assumptions about their individual motives and behavior.
again, you said: ‘the status quo is always very, very very comfortable and anything else is the scary unknown’
and so it is too for us. As lugon might say, ‘let’s think outside the box’.
Ok, no more musings on evading the system. I understand the mods have to cover their rear areas for legal purposes, and I would have thought the members sane enough to understand the consequences of such actions. But who amongst us has not at least thought about some similar scenario at one time or another when we see power abused or governments use similar tactics? Just a point of discussion for a future ethics thread.
MM, it wasn’t anything specific about stuff that’s just been written. It just reminded me I ought to say this though.
So carry on but just be aware of certain boundaries :-)
ok, this post got lost so I will write it again.
Tom, it is very simple.
Don’t tell people to break laws. Period.
MaMa. Thanks again. In my opinion, we have appeased them for too long and that is how we got into the ‘spot’ we are in today.
The thing is the good people, in these agencies, know that I speak the truth…
…the others…I could care less!!
Thanks annon 22, what law did I tell them to break?
Also: fluwiki in purely an online entity and does not carry out any other activity than what you see here on the forum and on the wiki. So any action taken away from here is the sole responsibility of whoever is doing it, and that includes the mods.
From something I just put on the news thread…
U.S., Pakistan Fight Bird Flu
U.S. Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky said that if avian flu developed into a human pandemic, it “could cripple economies, bring international trade and travel to a standstill, and also jeopardize political stability.” President George W. Bush says, “No nation can afford to ignore this threat, and every nation has responsibilities to detect and stop its spread.”
I wonder exactly what the responsibilities of the nations would be exactly? Is there a list somewhere? And what the repercussions would be if they didn’t respond “responsibly” to the threat?
Dr. Niman, Please continue your effort to get the sequences released, for the agencies already mentioned are scaring the hell out of me. I’m one of those “what if” thinkers and I don’t like some of my what ifs. Here is one. What if H5N1 goes pendemic in the next three months and the sequences have not been released. The heads of these agencies die off taking the password with them. This goes beyond murder. It now, in many cases, become genocide! Thank you for all that you are doing. gina
We don’t want to go there, Snowhound1. We don’t have enough conventional forces left to run a second warfront effectively, and H5N1 is not able to withstand temperature nearing those at the surface of the sun. Once more, I wrote between the lines.
Tom, read my post 12:29. And stop being hypersensitive :-)
We are sorry that in this day and age such statements are necessary, but I agree with anon_22′s posts in bold.
Flu Wiki does not encourage or support illegal activities of any sort. No winks, no nudges. Suggesting we do so is inappropriate for this Forum. It may seem harmless speculation to you, but to the professionals we want participating, it is far from idle chatter.
Having said that, let’s get back to WHO.
Anon_22, so this was an official disclaimer, and it should actually be in tiny type at tne bottom of the page, or read really fast at the end of the commercial. I got ya!
anon 22.
I like you very much as I do all of my colleagues at flu wiki who are of unquestionable integrity.
I do not like some agency members because they lack integrity and since I do not want to liabile any particular person which would be unfair, I choose to aim my comments at the ‘amorphous blog’, the WHO because simply it is an ethical way to approach the problem.
I asked the question, not because I was being hypersensitive but because I don’t know what you are talking about.
Tom DVM, In my opinion, we have appeased them for too long and that is how we got into the ‘spot’ we are in today.
The thing is the good people, in these agencies, know that I speak the truth…
…the others…I could care less!!
Agreed, the selfish ones deserve all they will surely get someday.
The hard part, how can you be sure who the good ones are til you have the chance to find out? Barring some glaring exceptions, individuals in the WHO, CDC, etc. are largely unknowns. How likely are they to feel welcome and potentially productive here if they think they’ll have to battle pre-concieved beliefs about them (because of where they work/who they are affiliated with) before real dialogue can begin?
I’m not saying don’t give credit/discredit where it is due. More, how can we foster a positive enviorment for these people to communicate with us? They need to get here before we can work with them.
- Thanks again for responding so swiftly, I have to leave very soon for a bit.
MaMa. Again, I agree with you. I trust your judgement.
How can I continue to state my criticisms and at the same time invite them to come over from the ‘dark side’…just kidding…couldn’t resist.
Seriously though, what should I do…just say nothing?
My big concern is that if and when the pandemic happens, and it is as bad as some of us think that it might be, how many nations in the world will simply be “cut off”, and left to deal with the virus within their borders with NO world assistance? Imagine what would have happened in Indonesia following the tsunami, the recent earthquake and Mt. Merapi, had they not received worldwide assistance.
I imagine that during a pandemic there will be many “Indonesias” out there, who will not receive any help. All the countries need to realize that without cooperation now, they may not receive any help from the “outside” during a pandemic. If releasing the sequences now would provide any help later on, I think that they would have to realize that it would be in their best interests to do so.
Snowhound. Just a thought. In a pandemic will there be camera’s from the major networks in places like Indonesia…I don’t think so.
It maybe a lot more like 1918 then we with in our supposed advanced technologies might think.
Of course we will have the WHO and their 5 million dollar television studio!!
Tom DVM, absolutely not!
I don’t blame you for not resisting:-) LOL!
I don’t know what the right answer is for sure. My thinking is to make statements personal when they need to be made- eg.Julie Gerberding(sp?) is a misguided fool who puts many lives in peril by her refusal to release vital information……..as opposed to……..the CDC is an inneffectual organization, the people there are blocking vital information……maybe trying to avoid blanket statements.
Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know.
Oh and Tom DVM, I didn’t mean just you, I meant us all. I’ve done my fair share of WHO-bashing in the past. Maybe now is the right time for things to change?
MaMa I am frankly shocked by your opinion of Julie Gerberding.
Seriously though, I think the best approach is to never get into the habit of personal comments (libel) unless you personally know every possible thing about the individual person.
I was involved in a long drawn out, protracted debate with two agencies and Government. The fact is you cannot libel an agency but you can libel individuals. If you watch how I say things, I never do it individually also because it is unethical and unfair.
Sweeping blanket statements, in my opinion, it the only ethical way to go…so either I must continue that way or stay silent.
In part, my comments reflect an less cultured, but more pervading public perception that sometimes the wrong thing can be done for the right reason, and society will step up to protect those brave enough to do so. That is why we have “whistleblower” protection, be it degraded, in our country.
I don’t really expect anyone to seriously follow such a flippant remark as I made earlier (and Tom DVM, I too am Tom, so I feel it is more my remarks that drew the ire of the mods, and in retrospect, justly so to strive for political and legal outreach).
Perhaps this example of self-policing would also demonstrate to those in the professional world, in possession of knowledge crucial to this threat, to find a degree of safety in coming to this forum, feeling us out, and confiding.
I’m a “nobody” in the greater scheme of the world, and my observations are shaped by my experiences and dark humor borne of survival of very bad things out of my control. So to any member of prominent official circles, I am the responsible party, and call this my bad, not FluWiki’s.
TRay. For what its worth, I re-read your posts and although I might not agree with the exact nuance you might have used with some of your statements, I really didn’t see anything that crossed the line or was blatantly unethical.
I did not see any direct suggestion from you to break the law.
Tom DVM, twas only an example for the purpose of clarity:-)
How naive of me. I hadn’t considered the libel issues, just the interpersonal ones. In that case, I just don’t know what to say except
….perhaps trying to balance necessary negative statements with positive ones on what we’d like to see done differently, how these changes might be made- but I guess that’s what we try to do here already anyway….aaaagh, no easy answer.
LOL!!!!!! ^that was me^ sorry!
Sorry, folks. I’m on my way to the airport (as always) so if I’m kinda appearing and disappearing or jumping into discussions at random intervals that’s the reason.
I agree we should put in that disclaimer at some point. Some of us live in jurisdictions where we have to be extra careful.
<another to-do then, anon says to self>
Tom, you’re doing fine. Don’t worry about it. Really. Cheers, anon.
Hi everyone.
My post at 12:07 misquoted Greenhammer as one part of the sentence at the end of the first paragraph was inadvertently removed…thought I should correct it with this post. Thanks.
“Dr. Gerberding is either ignorant — in which case she should be fired — or she is being deliberately misleading — in which case she should be indicted. She is delivering public-health information which is simply false, presumably to avoid discussion of the $5 billion that hospitals need immediately for an emergency upgrade.
By conveying the notion that useless measures are effective, she is undermining realistic efforts to prepare for a possible pandemic. She and her political bosses may ultimately be responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.” (Greenhammer on his blog today).
lugon - at 10:03
May we suggest that they spread information among themselves so that if there’s a leakage no-one can be blamed individually?
anon_22 – at 12:14
I think it is also important to emphasize that we do not in any way encourage or condone illegal behavior, and that any individual including contributors to this forum will take full responsibility for his/her own actions in whatever juridiction the person resides or is subject to.
I fully agree, and I’m honestly sorry. Please use your computer powers to delete my sentence above, and also this post; I’ll be much happier when mods have had the time to do it. I don’t even want to feel responsible for others doing what I tentatively wrote. Looking for ideas can make me say foolish things at times. Learning as I go.
Thanks!
Hi lugon. There’s nothing wrong with the sentence…don’t worry about it.
More comments coming, but altered receptor binging in Jakarta area, along with PB2 E627K raises some major concerns about WHO transparency.
bump
Slightly aside, but brief: Snowhound — 13:02 wrote
“My big concern is that if and when the pandemic happens, and it is as bad as some of us think that it might be, how many nations in the world will simply be “cut off”, and left to deal with the virus within their borders with NO world assistance?”
Snowhound, that’s ALL the nations in the world! E.g. if the USA admits it cannot care adequately for its own, how much help can Australia hope for?
Indeed, how much help, from where, can America hope for?
Individuals, societies, nations… Print it large, display it prominently: “WE ARE ON OUR OWN”
< Read it and weep >
What kind of help do people need? Supplies, information, expertise, know-how? Of what kind?
What kind of help can people provide? Just if we stop watching tv we (those with tv) have lots of free time. There was this thread about “resources freed up by disruption”.
And the third and fourth questions: how do we link both things up in this age which is so different from 1918? And how do we prepare so that our response (there will be a response) will be better?
On-topic again: how can we interact with WHO in this regard?
Save your weeping. Tears are good for plants.
ANON-YYZ, bumped as requested:-)
Is this ‘lull’ in bad news a good time for the WHO to reposition itself. I hope TPTB at the WHO realizes now (with a new DG) that this window may be short and not sit idle. There is still the chance the WHO becomes an asset, not a liability, stumbling block or every nations’ fall-guy. If the ‘stage’ is de-emphasized and supplemented by categorized preparedness guideline - without naming the ‘stage’, it might cause the nations to do something and not wait for the ‘stage four’ announcement.
Such guidelines could even be formulated based on the nations’ GDP being a factor in the calculation. It could be regional in nature, not one-size-fits-all.
AFAIK, some nations pandemic plans are triggered by the WHO ‘stages’.
Any thoughts?
Anon-YYZ,
I thought WHO changed its status scale to 1,2,3, 6. As in “no warning”. Forget 4 and 5, that would cause panic. gina
Hurricane Alley RN – at 01:50
I know. I know.
I am hoping another mechanism can be used to trigger national pandemic response actions, without waving a big red flag called the ‘stage’ that have other side effects like stock market melt down, supply chain panic, social unrest etc.
My biggest concern is some national pandemic plans are tied to the ‘stage’ which means nothing gets done until it hits ‘stage 4′.
bump for TomDVM
ANON YYZ. Thanks. I’m not sure that everyone would like me to go on ‘Ad Nauseum’ about the lack of scientific ethics and integrity at the World Health Organization.
It may have once been a ethical organization I wouldn’t know. It is not in my nature to continue the criticism but it is just that…
…constructive criticism to hopefully provide constructive solutions…
…The WHO having made a series of glaring mistakes has an opportunity here. That was the point I was trying to make in the ‘Catching a Falling Knife’ thread.
“This quiescent period is one of great opportunity for the WHO to become reinstated as a respected member of the scientific community.”
“What do you think are the odds?”
Tom DVM – at 20:01
“What do you think are the odds?”
Honestly, I don’t know. I was never a bookmaker :-)
I would think that they know there is only a short window when the ‘position’ of the WHO can be turned around, and that is before another headline catching outbreak occurs. The problem may not be WHO’s unwillingness, but may be inertia or lack of support from the members to change. I would think that they need support from the outside to act as catalysts.
This could take the form of ‘pressure appeal’ as in the petition for releasing the sequences, or ‘moral appeal’.
The ‘moral appeal’ may be a some what softer petition to request the WHO to develop regional guidelines for preparedness. The idea is to give the management and staff of the WHO some ammunition to take a leadership position to prod the nations into actions. Knowing that the nations are the bosses, it would be easier for this to take place if there is a petition from outside of national governments. The WHO regional guidelines would in turn give the national governments the rationale they need to take some action, and not wait any longer. For now, I see the national governments and WHO staring at each other - do we called that a deadly embrace?
This is of course my hope and wishes, and you may even call it hallucination. But if it works I don’t care what I am called.
Please discuss more. Any alternative ideas from brighter minds?
ANON YYZ. I don’t think we are looking at external impediments, I think we are looking at convenient excuses.
If we were members of this agency would we not want first of all to be honest…an important precept of the scientific method. Would we want provide full disclosure of what are authority actually was, what we could do and not do.
We would not repeatedly tell the world that the WHO was doing seroprevalence in Turkey and the results would be released by the end of the month.
We would say that we wanted to get a ‘team on the ground’ in some of these countries but we were not let off the bus or could not leave our hotel rooms etc.
Would we not say that vaccines are probably not going to be successful or avaliable within eighteen months to the general public…and that the usefullness of antivirals was questionable at best.
Would we not misuse a computer model of 2–7 million mortality worldwide as the only estimate and then continue to ‘sell’ the story for months despite criticisms from and including Dr. David Nabarro who stood up with Dr. Osterholm and said it could be 180 million.
The basic problem with the WHO is they have been consistently grossly unethical and incompetent for the last two years…
…They are grossly incompetent and unethical by choice and they can end it by choice. Thanks.
Hi ya’ll,
I have been doing this thing that is really bad for me…thinking. Just amuse me for a few moments. Let’s say the WHO has all the information we desire. Let’s just say when the WHO got the information they took it before the UN. The UN inturn found the information so disturbing they voted to seal up the evidence. At the same time telling members of WHO if the information leaked out it would be an automatic death sentence. Could the WHO just be the fall guy for the UN? (past DG) hum? gina
Hi Gina. In my dealings with an agency a few years ago, I took a conspiracy theory to a colleague who worked within the agency. His answer to me then I think applies here.
He said that at all times I should remember that the agency in question was not smart enought to make such a plan.
I think the WHO is just apathetic, incompetent and are in most part blinded by their own reflection.
Gina,
You may have something there. If we could get Eric Shawn of Fox News on the case, maybe he could check it out for us. He’s been investigating the UN for years. Can we all say “oil-for-food”. At the very least maybe he could find out if Kofi Annan is prepping :-/
Back atcha Tom,
Maybe I should write a “Who dunit” novel? Now there’s a great analogy. I have always thought my mimd would either make me rich or get me killed. I would prefer the rich! At least I will wake up in the morning with a few less gray hairs. If I don’t, I’ll bleach them blond too.
I might need your professional advice on something I’m planning. (That just made you sound like a hitman.) LOL I’ll just have to track you down.
Thank you for telling me ins such a nice way that I’m nuts. gina
Gina. You most definitely are not nuts.
It’s just that you are over-estimating the WHO’s abilities as I did an agency in the past until my colleague straightened me out. I think you call that learning by the ‘school of hard knocks’.
OKbirdwatcher,
Can I hope a few will not prep? Does that make me a bad person? Is that one of those “Who Cares” questions? gina
Tom, If we should ever meet, I will let you reserve the right to change your mind. Not that there’s anything wrong with the one you have.
As for that school you mentioned, I go there and have the black and blue marks to prove it. There’s talk of using the Peter Principle on me before they have to create a new class. The Black and blue blonds.
That was a laugh with me joke. gina
Closed due to length. Conversation is continued here.