# Will the WHO survive the reckoning? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Quarantine Zone\ **Tags:** covid-quarantine\ **Created:** [March 30, 2020, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688 "2020-03-30T19:49:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2020, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/61 "2020-04-02T09:43:33Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Are you claiming that the Trump administration is responsible for this global pandemic? …are you withdrawing the claim that I “dont like the USA?” ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2020, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/62 "2020-04-02T09:47:07Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …are you withdrawing the claim that I “dont like the USA?” Withdrawn and I apologize for it. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2020, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/63 "2020-04-02T09:52:12Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Withdrawn and I apologize for it. …fair enough and thank you, I appreciate it. 🙂 No I don’t think the Trump administration is responsible for this global pandemic. They are responsible for the poor response to the pandemic in the United States and in turn their failures will result in the loss of many American lives and as I said before, that breaks my heart. From the other side of the world I feel so helpless. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2020, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/64 "2020-04-02T09:58:17Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …fair enough and thank you, I appreciate it. 🙂 > > No I don’t think the Trump administration is responsible for this global pandemic. They are responsible for the poor response to the pandemic in the United States and in turn their failures will result in the loss of many American lives and as I said before, that breaks my heart. From the other side of the world I feel so helpless. I agree with that and I agree that Trump is a buffoon. I would like to see the truth come out and the mistakes made here not be repeated. One side effect of this pandemic for China might be the awakening of its youth and an opening up of China to be a more representative government. > **[Coronavirus Crisis Awakens a Sleeping Giant: China’s Youth (Published 2020)](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/world/asia/coronavirus-china-youth.html)** > > How the ruling Communist Party manages the coming months will help shape how hundreds of millions of young people see its authoritarian political bargain for decades to come. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2020, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/65 "2020-04-02T10:06:44Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > I agree with that and I agree that Trump is a buffoon. I would like to see the truth come out and the mistakes made here not be repeated. One side effect of this pandemic for China might be the awakening of its youth and an opening up of China to be a more representative government. > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/world/asia/coronavirus-china-youth.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/world/asia/coronavirus-china-youth.html) …its really hard to believe that we were talking about the disgusting treatment of the [Uighurs](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063) only a few months ago. All of that seems to have been forgotten with the pandemic. The last six months have felt like six years. I just want it all to be over. ---
**Author:** ![Saturn\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Saturn\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saturn_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2020, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/66 "2020-04-02T13:07:30Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is not WHO. This was the WHO [response to the 2008 outbreak.](https://www.who.int/csr/don/2008_12_02/en/) What are you even talking about at the moment? Can you provide any evidence to support the assertion that WHO did nothing? It’s about the cover up of the cholera outbreak that WHO was complicit in. > [@](#): > > Except everything that was relevant in that document. Except that it wasn’t > [@](#): > > Did you not read the cites? Its all pretty straightforward. There wasn’t much in that document that was relevant. Did you read your own cite? > [@](#): > > Because of the nature of what the ICD is. So you finally agree that WHO is endorsing CMT. > [@](#): > > My critical thinking has been demonstrated throughout the thread. You mean your lack of critical thinking. > [@](#): > > You are free to reach your own conclusions. I cited sections from the report where Israel was mentioned. They were highly relevant and important. So you didn’t understand the bias shown by WHO? > [@](#): > > America should stop playing politics. It should be about saving lives. They should recognize Taiwan and then lobby the United Nations to do the same. The United Nations are only as good as what its membership allows it to be. And if it isn’t good enough then its up to the member nations to change it. It isn’t in the WHO mandate to arbitrarily decide who is and isn’t a country of standing. That isn’t how it works. Unlike the WHO, it is not America’s mandate to uphold the health of all people, including those of Taiwan. > [@](#): > > I literally googled what you asked me to search for. You assured me that I would find everything I needed. All I found out about was a movie about a Chinese girl’s efforts to reunite a lonely baby yeti and that Stephen Colbert made something called Pander Express. I don’t know what either has to do with the subject at hand. Again, try some regular thinking. You should be able understand how search engines work. > [@](#): > > It freaking is! Its all over the website. Its all over the net. But if you can’t be bothered to read the cites I’ve provided then send them an email and they can answer your specific questions. It freaking isn’t! Your cites haven’t answered little about their accountability and less about transparency. > [@](#): > > I’ve given you plenty of answers. You still haven’t answered anything > [@](#): > > :: sigh :: yes I have. :: sigh :: no you haven’t. > [@](#): > > But you agree I posted it yes? Posted what? > [@](#): > > Accusing other posters of lying is a bad thing. I haven’t lied here. There’s no evidence you haven’t > [@](#): > > I just clicked on one random link. > > [https://www.who.int/health-topics/blood-transfusion-safety/#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/blood-transfusion-safety/#tab=tab_1) > > I randomly clicked on one of the PDF’s that took me to a 77 page report that included results and external quality assessments and everything. This isn’t bullshit PR. In total there must be thousands of pages of qualitative data linked to on all of those links. We should be happy with some information on blood transfusion safety? How about looking at something more serious like the aforementioned cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe? Or the Ebola outbreak in West Africa? Or maybe the coronavirus pandemic? > [@](#): > > So we are getting to the crux of it. You admit that accountability exists: it just isn’t accountability that fits your standards. Considering that you also think the United Nations shouldn’t exist I’m thinking we are going to struggle to meet your standards. Fortunately you aren’t in a position to do anything about it. Read again. Accountability in name without consequences is not accountability in practice. > [@](#): > > The budget I linked to was much more than numbers. It showed how funds were allocated and how it fits their strategic priorities. You are making assumptions about how countries (like China) “influence” the strategic plan and how funding is made. But this isn’t how it all works. The information is all [out](https://www.who.int/evidence/OMSEVIPNetStratPlan.pdf)[there](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/255777/9789241512756-eng.pdf?sequence=1). There are thousands and thousands of pages of information that are out there. The processes are very transparent. If you want specific answers to your questions then send them an email. They aren’t hiding anything from you. WHO has not been able to demonstrate the nature of their partnerships with non-state actors. A lot of funding comes through them and WHO’s policy is shaped by that. It’s not just Chinese money. Well I’m thankful for WHO. New Zealand heeded the advice early, our country is currently on lockdown, we are following the scientific consensus and so far we have been fortunate to have only a single death. I’m upset that America hasn’t done the same, due to in part the distrust (driven by people like you) in institutions that are doing their best to save peoples lives. If this WHO checklist had been implemented by the Federal Government when it was first [released](https://www.who.int/publications-detail/risk-communication-and-community-engagement-readiness-and-initial-response-for-novel-coronaviruses-(-ncov))(in January) I think it would have made a significant difference to the death toll in America. > [@](#): > > So I haven’t drunken any cool-aid. I live in a place with a government that doesn’t rely on “alternative facts”, and because they have listened to the official advice and information (provided in part by the World Health Organization) they’ve given us a fighting chance. > > The dead in America? They are the responsibility of the Trump administration. It isn’t the fault of China, it isn’t the fault of WHO. Again, the WHO is not an evil organization. Just an incompetent one. Taiwan warned the WHO about this new virus from China but they ignored their warning. When they finally did take notice, they said there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, which was just parroting China’s statement with no corroboration. When evidence emerged of China silencing an early whistleblower, WHO extolled China’s response and transparency. While other countries were calling it a defacto pandemic, WHO didn’t declare it until thousands were infected across dozens of countries. That’s too many mistakes without having to take on any consequences. > [@](#): > > How about something better than a wishy-washy suggestion of a “better alternative to the WHO, or reforming it.” What is the better alternative? What needs reforming? WHO commits more resources, time and money to Africa with a large part of that money going to fight polio. If you don’t like the United Nations and if you don’t like WHO then who are you suggesting should step up in their place? And what processes would you put in place to ensure that Africa and polio continue to get the resources, time and money they currently receive? I don’t know what can replace the WHO. This isn’t a case of the devil you know, especially when people’s lives are at stake. If WHO is going to continue, it needs to be overhauled and cleaned from within. Too many bureaucrats doing too little for too much. > [@](#): > > And what would you have suggested should have replaced them back at the start of the crisis? If WHO didn’t exist, then who would have been talking to the Chinese, coordinating information with other countries? If we took them completely out of the equation, how would the projected death toll be looking any better? If the virus was looked into earlier and taken more seriously we would have had a better chance of a better outcome. > [@](#): > > By and large WHO do act swiftly and decidedly within their mandate. They do **a lot of different things**. I’m still not convinced you understand a fraction of the things that they do. You literally dismissed a link outlaying the scope of everything they do as “PR.” I saw from that page many projects they have their hand in. The problem is when their mistakes go unchecked. > [@](#): > > URL=“[WHO | Governance](https://apps.who.int/gb/gov/)”]This is how decisions are made at WHO. I suggest you start reading to find out how WHO policies are decided. Again: there are thousands of pages here. All of it open and transparent. When you’ve finished reading you can share with us exactly how disproportionate China’s influence on the process is. I don’t think the WHO is going to publish a paper on how they take Chinese money to help legitimize them. > [@](#): > > The WHO have the best interest of the people’s health in mind. So that’s that sorted then. No need to dismantle the World Health Organization. The current WHO has best interest of China in mind. It needs to be overhauled if it truly is to live up to its mandate. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2020, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/67 "2020-04-03T00:09:52Z")
> [@Saturn\_Dreams](#): > > It’s about the cover up of the cholera outbreak that WHO was complicit in. …how were WHO complicit? They weren’t mentioned at all in your cite. I’ve cited their response to the 2008 outbreak. They reported 1 735 cholera cases with 484 deaths. They established a coordinated response plan. WHO procured emergency stocks, they deployed an outbreak and investigation team. How was any of that complicit in a cover up done by a person working for a completely different agency? > [@](#): > > Except that it wasn’t I’ve provided the basic documents of governance for WHO that outlines everything from the Constitution to the rights and obligations of member states, to engagement with non-state actors, to financial regulations and oversight. It covers everything you asked for. > [@](#): > > There wasn’t much in that document that was relevant. Did you read your own cite? It wasn’t “properly declared” in the opinion Lawrence Gostin and the doctors that wrote the letter. Have you forgotten what it was we were discussing? > [@](#): > > So you finally agree that WHO is endorsing CMT. If I had intended to “agree that WHO is endorsing CMT” then I would have said so. I didn’t: so I haven’t. > [@](#): > > You mean your lack of critical thinking. This is starting to get real childish. Perhaps leave the ad-hominems out of it. You can disagree with me all you like but this is getting ridiculous. > [@](#): > > So you didn’t understand the bias shown by WHO? I disagree that bias was shown here. I think in context discussing Israel was essential to the entire point of the report, I thought what was written fit the evidence, and the fact that other countries weren’t mentioned was both irrelevant and didn’t demonstrate bias. > [@](#): > > Unlike the WHO, it is not America’s mandate to uphold the health of all people, including those of Taiwan. The people of Taiwan haven’t been ignored. As has been shown by cites in this thread the people of Taiwan have access to all the information that it needs from WHO. This is a strawman. If you want Taiwan to be recognized then lobby your reps to get this administration to recognize Taiwan. The United Nations are answerable to its member nations. It is incumbent on you to put some effort into it if you want them to make a change. > [@](#): > > Again, try some regular thinking. You should be able understand how search engines work. I know how they work. I had already done the proper search prior to you giving me bad instructions. Guess what? I found the same handful of cherry picked articles that have already been cited in this thread. I’m not going to read that nonsense Federalist article again. > [@](#): > > It freaking isn’t! Your cites haven’t answered little about their accountability and less about transparency. The mere \*existence \*of my cites says everything about transparency. The entire process is out there. Hundreds of thousands of PDF files documenting what they do, how they do it, why they decided to do it, where the money is spent. > [@](#): > > You still haven’t answered anything > :: sigh :: no you haven’t. I’ve provided cite after cite. You’ve ignored them. I’ve provided you an easy way to sort through the thousands of documents: a simple email. You refuse to do that. > [@](#): > > Posted what? That I posted what I said I had posted when and where I posted it. > [@](#): > > There’s no evidence you haven’t **It is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying outside of the pit**. I tried to play nice before, but I suggest you drop this entirely. > [@](#): > > **We should be happy** with some information on blood transfusion safety? Ummm…yes? What is it do you think the World Health Organization does? The overwhelming majority of the work they do is mundane, routine but **important**. If WHO wasn’t doing this work, who do you think would be doing it? > [@](#): > > How about looking at something more serious like the aforementioned cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe? [Like this?](https://www.who.int/csr/don/2008_12_02/en/) Which I’ve already cited? > [@](#): > > Or the Ebola outbreak in West Africa? [You mean like this?](https://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/en/) > [@](#): > > Or maybe the coronavirus pandemic? [You mean like this?](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019) I don’t know how you managed to miss the last one. The link to this is on the front page of the WHO website, in a bright red button that takes up a quarter-of-half the page. Its almost as if you don’t actually know what it is WHO does. > [@](#): > > Read again. Accountability in name without consequences is not accountability in practice. No I’m not going to be reading again. WHO is ultimately accountable to its member nations and I’ve already cited the processes that are in place in order for them to take action if need be. The UNDP is one of the mechanisms that is in place to provide oversight, it isn’t the only one. > [@](#): > > WHO has not been able to demonstrate the nature of their partnerships with non-state actors. A lot of funding comes through them and WHO’s policy is shaped by that. It’s not just Chinese money. There is an entire section in the basic documents of governance that outlines the [framework for engagement with non-state actors](https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=103). The nature of their “partnerships” with non-state actors is clearly outlined in that framework. What is it exactly are you missing? > [@](#): > > Again, the WHO is not an evil organization. Just an incompetent one. You don’t even know much of what it is WHO actually does. Calling it “incompetent” when you think that “information on blood transfusion safety” isn’t important is a bit rich. > [@](#): > > Taiwan warned the WHO about this new virus from China but they ignored their warning. When they finally did take notice, they said there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, which was just parroting China’s statement with no corroboration. When evidence emerged of China silencing an early whistleblower, WHO extolled China’s response and transparency. While other countries were calling it a defacto pandemic, WHO didn’t declare it until thousands were infected across dozens of countries. That’s too many mistakes without having to take on any consequences. There is a huge amount of context that you’ve omitted (understandably) here. I agree mistakes have been made. But WHO didn’t ignore the warning, they weighed up the warning with all of the other evidence they had and made a call. They “parroted China’s statement” because corroboration is a difficult process that takes time. WHO declared it a pandemic when it hit their threshold for declaring a pandemic. They extolled China’s response and transparency because China’s response was effective, because they were transparent enough that WHO got enough data to be able to act. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what can replace the WHO. This isn’t a case of the devil you know, especially when people’s lives are at stake. If WHO is going to continue, it needs to be overhauled and cleaned from within. Too many bureaucrats doing too little for too much. Can you even tell me how many bureaucrats WHO actually has? This is a quantifiable accusation. How many is too many? What is wrong with the existing processes that mean they should be bypassed to “overhaul and clean from within?” > [@](#): > > If the virus was looked into earlier and taken more seriously we would have had a better chance of a better outcome. The Governor of Georgia said yesterday [“He Only Just Found Out The Coronavirus Can Be Transmitted By People Without Symptoms.”](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/georgia-coronavirus-brian-kemp-symptoms-spread) America had a chance of a better outcome. WHO has provided all the information it needed to make the right choices. You aren’t going to get a better outcome because you’ve got people like the Governor of Georgia and the President of the United States have fucked up big time. When you are racing against the clock in the face of a potential global pandemic mistakes are always going to be made. People will make good calls, people will make bad calls. The reality is that we had enough information to make the correct calls a couple of months ago. The failures you are seeing now are not the fault of WHO, they are not the fault of China. > [@](#): > > I saw from that page many projects they have their hand in. The problem is when their mistakes go unchecked. There is a complex system of oversight in place and WHO is ultimately responsible to its member states. Mistakes don’t go unchecked. Mistakes are corrected. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the WHO is going to publish a paper on how they take Chinese money to help legitimize them. “WHO taking Chinese money to help legitimize them” is conspiracy-level talk. > [@](#): > > The current WHO has best interest of China in mind. It needs to be overhauled if it truly is to live up to its mandate. The current WHO spends over \*\*twice \*\*as much money in Africa than it does in South-East Asia. Its almost as if you don’t know what it is WHO actually does, its almost as if you don’t know where they spend their money, how they do their job, what their job actually is. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2020, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/68 "2020-04-03T01:38:32Z")
> [@Banquet Bear](#): > > The people of Taiwan haven’t been ignored. As has been shown by cites in this thread the people of Taiwan have access to all the information that it needs from WHO. This is a strawman. > > If you want Taiwan to be recognized then lobby your reps to get this administration to recognize Taiwan. The United Nations are answerable to its member nations. It is incumbent on you to put some effort into it if you want them to make a change. Yeah, sorry, not going to slog through the thread to find the ‘cites’ that prove Taiwan hasn’t been cut out of the global pandemic discussion, since I know they would be bullshit…seeing as how they have been. Even a cursory search shows plenty of citations on this. [Here](https://time.com/5805629/coronavirus-taiwan/) is one from Time: > [@](#): > > Taiwan Has Been Shut Out of Global Health Discussions. Its Participation Could Have Saved Lives See, right there in the title? Let’s see what it says, ehe? > [@](#): > > E > ight hundred and fifty thousand of Taiwan’s 23 million citizens reside in mainland China. Four hundred thousand work there. At its narrowest point, the Taiwan Strait between the island and the mainland is just 130 km. So, by all accounts, Taiwan should be in the midst a major coronavirus outbreak. Instead, as of March 18, it had seen just 100 cases compared to the more than 80,000 in China and the tens of thousands in several countries in Europe. > > This has not happened by chance. Learning from the experiences of SARS in 2003, Taiwan was ready when the outbreak in Wuhan occurred. After the first notifications at the end of 2019, Taipei swiftly deployed a combination of measures to identify and contain the virus, including the use of big data to help contain potential cases. > > The global health community could have learned from Taiwan’s experience. But in recent years its world-class health specialists have been shut out in the cold by Beijing’s geopolitical obsessions. In 2016, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-Wen came to power with a mandate to assert her people’s autonomy. China did not take kindly to this democratic challenge to its “One China” policy and bullied the world’s multilateral institutions into dealing only with Beijing. As a result, Taipei was denied access to a number of international fora which it was previously able to attend as an observer. Let’s see if they have anything to say about the WHO: > [@](#): > > This includes the UN World Health Organization. Until 2016, Taiwan was allowed to participate in its annual assembly as a non-state actor. This is no longer the case, and for the past three years, its request for an invitation has been denied. If it wishes to participate in WHO technical working bodies made up of health experts looking at specific challenges, it must apply each time and its participation is regularly blocked. One example of this was last year when Taiwan was blocked from discussions on influenza vaccines. > > Taiwan made clear that its wish to be part of these bodies was due to its practical know-how. It has been satisfied to be included as an observer. It has something to offer the global health community. Yet China muddied the waters of geopolitics and global health – and today we see the consequences. So…yeah. Not sure what your ‘cites’ were, but whatever they say, it’s bullshit. Beijing has definitely made an effort to block them, and the WHO played along under the guise that Taiwan is a province of China, and they provided the information in briefings to China, Q.E.D. Taiwan got the info. All is good! I mean, the people of Taiwan THINK they have been cut off as well. Let’s see, [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-29/who-says-it-s-working-with-taiwan-experts-after-video-goes-viral) is another article from Bloomberg. Let’s see if they mention the WHO: > [@](#): > > WHO Says It’s Working With Taiwan Experts After Video Goes Viral > > The World Health Organization said it was working with Taiwanese health experts after an interview went viral in which a senior official appeared to hang up on a reporter who asked about the island’s membership status in light of the Covid-19 outbreak. > In the segment aired by broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong, a journalist asked Bruce Aylward, who helped lead a WHO mission to China’s Wuhan, if the organization would consider giving Taiwan membership. The footage showed him saying he couldn’t hear properly, and asking the reporter to skip to the next question. It then showed the line disconnecting after the reporter said she’d like to hear more about Taiwan. > Later when the call was reconnected, the presenter asked him to comment on Taiwan’s progress in containing the virus. Aylward replied that all areas of China have done well and wished Hong Kong luck in its efforts. > Taiwanese Foreign Minister Joseph Wu tweeted that the WHO should set politics aside when dealing with a pandemic. Supporters of Taiwan say the WHO is too deferential to Beijing, which considers the self-governed democracy part of China. Ah, all is clear. The WHO IS working with Taiwan…sort-a-kind-a…now. Wonder why? 😛 Let’s see if there is more, ehe? > [@](#): > > China has successfully blocked Taiwan’s participation in international bodies such as the World Health Organization as part of decades-long effort to isolate and delegitimize the rival government in Taipei. Beijing has stepped up that campaign since Taiwanese elected President Tsai Ing-wen of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party in 2016, when the WHO ended Taiwan’s observer status at its annual World Health Assembly. This stuff isn’t even some sort of sekrit-squirrrrrral level stuff. It’s not even hidden. It’s freaking been right out there all along. I mean, I didn’t read your whole wall of text…was just skimming when I saw what I quoted there. Which is pretty freaking unreal. It’s a strawman? Well then, it’s one that a fuck ton of people, other than you I guess, are aware of. The Taiwanese sure think it’s happened. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2020, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/69 "2020-04-03T02:12:20Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Yeah, sorry, not going to slog through the thread to find the ‘cites’ that prove Taiwan hasn’t been cut out of the global pandemic discussion, since I know they would be bullshit…seeing as how they have been. Even a cursory search shows plenty of citations on this. [Here](https://time.com/5805629/coronavirus-taiwan/) is one from Time: > > See, right there in the title? Let’s see what it says, ehe? …you are citing **editorial comment**. That the editorial comment is reflected in the headline is not surprising in the least. > [@](#): > > Let’s see if they have anything to say about the WHO: > > So…yeah. Not sure what your ‘cites’ were, but whatever they say, it’s bullshit. Beijing has definitely made an effort to block them, and the WHO played along under the guise that Taiwan is a province of China, and they provided the information in briefings to China, Q.E.D. Taiwan got the info. All is good! I mean, the people of Taiwan THINK they have been cut off as well. My cites clearly showed that “Taiwan have access to all the information that it needs from WHO.” The existence of this opinion doesn’t change that particular fact. > [@](#): > > Let’s see, [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-29/who-says-it-s-working-with-taiwan-experts-after-video-goes-viral) is another article from Bloomberg. Let’s see if they mention the WHO: > > Ah, all is clear. The WHO IS working with Taiwan…sort-a-kind-a…now. Wonder why? 😛 This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. > [@](#): > > Let’s see if there is more, ehe? Again **this doesn’t negate my point**. WHO is a product of its member nations. The United States doesn’t recognize Taiwan. If you want the WHO to recognize Taiwan the first step needs to be to get the United States to officially recognize Taiwan. That would involve you lobbying your reps. This is how change happens. If you can’t do that then don’t expect anything to change. > [@](#): > > This stuff isn’t even some sort of sekrit-squirrrrrral level stuff. It’s not even hidden. It’s freaking been right out there all along. I mean, I didn’t read your whole wall of text…was just skimming when I saw what I quoted there. Which is pretty freaking unreal. It’s a strawman? Well then, it’s one that a fuck ton of people, other than you I guess, are aware of. The Taiwanese sure think it’s happened. It was and it is a strawman. The people of Taiwan haven’t been ignored. As has been shown by cites in this thread the people of Taiwan have access to all the information that it needs from WHO. If you don’t want to read what I wrote then you aren’t obliged to read what I wrote. But its all there in black and white. ---
**Author:** ![Saturn\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Saturn\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saturn_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2020, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/70 "2020-04-03T05:40:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …how were WHO complicit? > > They weren’t mentioned at all in your cite. I’ve cited their response to the 2008 outbreak. They reported 1 735 cholera cases with 484 deaths. They established a coordinated response plan. WHO procured emergency stocks, they deployed an outbreak and investigation team. How was any of that complicit in a cover up done by a person working for a completely different agency? It was a UN cover up. WHO is an arm of the UN. Whether the UN was explicitly suppressing what WHO was supposed to do or, WHO lacked initiative to confront the epidemic, that makes them complicit. > [@](#): > > I’ve provided the basic documents of governance for WHO that outlines everything from the Constitution to the rights and obligations of member states, to engagement with non-state actors, to financial regulations and oversight. It covers everything you asked for. Mentioning accountability in a self-produced document and then being told they are assessed by their own organization isn’t public accountability. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t “properly declared” in the opinion Lawrence Gostin and the doctors that wrote the letter. Have you forgotten what it was we were discussing? It wasn’t just Gostin. > **[Physicians' Open Letter To WHO | PDF | Cholera | Sudan](https://www.scribd.com/document/358818042/Physicians-Open-Letter-to-WHO)** > > Sept. 11, 2017 letter by U.S. doctors to to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the UN’s World Health Organization, > [@](#): > > If I had intended to “agree that WHO is endorsing CMT” then I would have said so. I didn’t: so I haven’t. You made a reference to the nature of ICD. You said you understood what the ICD is. Then you should understand that what’s in the ICD is an endorsement by the WHO. > [@](#): > > This is starting to get real childish. Perhaps leave the ad-hominems out of it. You can disagree with me all you like but this is getting ridiculous. No ad-hominems. I agree we can disagree. And I think this is all we’re doing. Having a disagreement. > [@](#): > > I disagree that bias was shown here. I think in context discussing Israel was essential to the entire point of the report, I thought what was written fit the evidence, and the fact that other countries weren’t mentioned was both irrelevant and didn’t demonstrate bias. An example of our disagreement. I agreed with it. An impartial UN overseer agreed with it. I’m partial to the impartial party. > [@](#): > > The people of Taiwan haven’t been ignored. As has been shown by cites in this thread the people of Taiwan have access to all the information that it needs from WHO. This is a strawman. > > If you want Taiwan to be recognized then lobby your reps to get this administration to recognize Taiwan. The United Nations are answerable to its member nations. It is incumbent on you to put some effort into it if you want them to make a change. Point missed again. It’s not about getting Taiwan recognized. That’s a whole other issue. It’s about putting China’s interest ahead of people’s lives. I’ve said along, the WHO should not play politics with people’s health. In a pandemic, talk to Taiwan directly if that’s what they’re requesting. These are extraordinary times. Once things get back to normal, they can follow protocol as usual and let the Taiwan issue be played in another court. > [@](#): > > I know how they work. I had already done the proper search prior to you giving me bad instructions. Guess what? I found the same handful of cherry picked articles that have already been cited in this thread. I’m not going to read that nonsense Federalist article again. There is none so blind as those who will not read. > [@](#): > > The mere \*existence \*of my cites says everything about transparency. The entire process is out there. Hundreds of thousands of PDF files documenting what they do, how they do it, why they decided to do it, where the money is spent. “Providing documents” is not transparency. It’s what’s in those documents and how they are presented that leads to transparency. And your definition of transparency is too narrow by confining to documentation. It’s about how they don’t provide answers to (some of) their actions. > [@](#): > > I’ve provided cite after cite. You’ve ignored them. I’ve provided you an easy way to sort through the thousands of documents: a simple email. You refuse to do that. Individuals having to email a public organization to explain their actions and influences is not transparency. > [@](#): > > That I posted what I said I had posted when and where I posted it. What is this referring to? > [@](#): > > **It is against the rules to accuse another poster of lying outside of the pit**. I tried to play nice before, but I suggest you drop this entirely. LOL. > [@](#): > > Ummm…yes? > > What is it do you think the World Health Organization does? > > The overwhelming majority of the work they do is mundane, routine but **important**. If WHO wasn’t doing this work, who do you think would be doing it? I call Strawman. Who’s talking about blood work? Other than you. > [@](#): > > [Like this?](https://www.who.int/csr/don/2008_12_02/en/) Which I’ve already cited? [Like this.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41702662) > [@](#): > > [You mean like this?](https://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/en/) [I mean like this.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ebola-response/global-health-experts-accuse-who-of-egregious-failure-on-ebola-idUSKBN0TB10K20151122) > [@](#): > > [You mean like this?](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019) > > I don’t know how you managed to miss the last one. The link to this is on the front page of the WHO website, in a bright red button that takes up a quarter-of-half the page. > > Its almost as if you don’t actually know what it is WHO does. [I mean like this.](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/world-health-organization-protects-china-instead-of-coronavirus-victims) It’s almost as if you actually don’t know what is the WHO is doing. > [@](#): > > No I’m not going to be reading again. WHO is ultimately accountable to its member nations and I’ve already cited the processes that are in place in order for them to take action if need be. The UNDP is one of the mechanisms that is in place to provide oversight, it isn’t the only one. there is none so blind as those who will not read. > [@](#): > > There is an entire section in the basic documents of governance that outlines the [framework for engagement with non-state actors](https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=103). The nature of their “partnerships” with non-state actors is clearly outlined in that framework. > > What is it exactly are you missing? Lots of questions about non-state actors. For a start, I’d like an explanation as to how they decide who gets how much influence when it comes to both policy-making and funding thereof. > [@](#): > > You don’t even know much of what it is WHO actually does. Calling it “incompetent” when you think that “information on blood transfusion safety” isn’t important is a bit rich. LOL. You’re equating blood transfusion safety to a coronavirus pandemic? I’m not sure you understand what the WHO is actually supposed to be doing. > [@](#): > > I agree mistakes have been made. Admitting that is an important step. How are those mistakes going to be addressed in terms of consequences? I’m not talking about firings, although that could happen. More in terms of making sure the same mistakes don’t occur again. And how will they present that they admit their mistakes and future course of action? Will people have to send individual emails to find out? > [@](#): > > The Governor of Georgia said yesterday [“He Only Just Found Out The Coronavirus Can Be Transmitted By People Without Symptoms.”](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/georgia-coronavirus-brian-kemp-symptoms-spread) > > America had a chance of a better outcome. WHO has provided all the information it needed to make the right choices. You aren’t going to get a better outcome because you’ve got people like the Governor of Georgia and the President of the United States have fucked up big time. America had a chance of a better outcome. Italy had a chance of a better outcome. China had a chance of a better outcome. Did Conte fuck up? Did Xi fuck up? > [@](#): > > When you are racing against the clock in the face of a potential global pandemic mistakes are always going to be made. People will make good calls, people will make bad calls. Does that include the people at WHO. If so, who fucked up at the WHO and in what way? > [@](#): > > The reality is that we had enough information to make the correct calls a couple of months ago. The failures you are seeing now are not the fault of WHO, they are not the fault of China. China, where the virus first emerged from, and the WHO, who’s mandate is to coordinate health response, is not responsible for the pandemic? Who is? > [@](#): > > There is a complex system of oversight in place and WHO is ultimately responsible to its member states. Mistakes don’t go unchecked. Mistakes are corrected. What exactly is this “complex system”? How are mistakes corrected? > [@](#): > > “WHO taking Chinese money to help legitimize them” is conspiracy-level talk. Actions speak louder than words. > [@](#): > > The current WHO spends over \*\*twice \*\*as much money in Africa than it does in South-East Asia. Its almost as if you don’t know what it is WHO actually does, its almost as if you don’t know where they spend their money, how they do their job, what their job actually is. Is this the same Africa as where Tedros is from? The same Africa where China has been ramping up investment since 2018? The same Africa that China is using to expand their global influence? You keep making my point for me. You know what they’re doing and where the money is going but you can’t think critically enough to see the deeper context. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2020, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/71 "2020-04-03T07:16:57Z")
> [@Saturn\_Dreams](#): > > It was a UN cover up. WHO is an arm of the UN. Whether the UN was explicitly suppressing what WHO was supposed to do or, WHO lacked initiative to confront the epidemic, that makes them complicit. …that isn’t how any of this works. This is a complete failure to understand the information provided by your cite. You originally claimed that the “Head of WHO’s satellite office in Zimbabwe” was responsible for this but this wasn’t what happened at all. This had nothing to do with WHO. There is no guilt by association. I’ve cited the work that WHO did during this outbreak. You’ve cited no evidence that this work was affected by what happened in a completely different agency. This has nothing to do with WHO. > [@](#): > > Mentioning accountability in a self-produced document and then being told they are assessed by their own organization isn’t public accountability. Of course it was “self produced.” That’s how these things work. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t just Gostin. > [Physicians' Open Letter To WHO | PDF | Cholera | Sudan](https://www.scribd.com/document/358818042/Physicians-Open-Letter-to-WHO) What part of “Lawrence Gostin **and the doctors that wrote the letter** ” did you fail to understand? > [@](#): > > You made a reference to the nature of ICD. You said you understood what the ICD is. Then you should understand that what’s in the ICD is an endorsement by the WHO. No it isn’t. The ICD may list a disease, it then may list the many different treatments, and how some of those treatments are effective and how some of those treatments are not. That isn’t an endorsement. That’s data. > [@](#): > > No ad-hominems. I agree we can disagree. And I think this is all we’re doing. Having a disagreement. Saying “You mean your lack of critical thinking” is not a mere disagreement. Its a personal attack. > [@](#): > > An example of our disagreement. I agreed with it. An impartial UN overseer agreed with it. I’m partial to the impartial party. And what do you want me to do about that? You cited this as an example of WHO bias. But its nothing more than an opinion. An anonymous opinion at that. So you are partial to it: so what? WHO isn’t going to be dismantled as a result of you being partial to an opinion. > [@](#): > > Point missed again. It’s not about getting Taiwan recognized. That’s a whole other issue. It’s about putting China’s interest ahead of people’s lives. I’ve said along, the WHO should not play politics with people’s health. In a pandemic, talk to Taiwan directly if that’s what they’re requesting. These are extraordinary times. Once things get back to normal, they can follow protocol as usual and let the Taiwan issue be played in another court. WHO is required to follow its constitution: which I’ve cited. They aren’t playing politics. The member nations are playing politics. This doesn’t get “played out in court.” The member countries either choose to recognize Taiwan or they don’t. This is yet another failure to understand the process. > [@](#): > > There is none so blind as those who will not read. What part of “I’m not going to read that nonsense Federalist article **again** ” did you fail to understand? > [@](#): > > “Providing documents” is not transparency. It’s what’s in those documents and how they are presented that leads to transparency. And your definition of transparency is too narrow by confining to documentation. It’s about how they don’t provide answers to (some of) their actions. Providing documents demonstrates a commitment to transparency. What is actually in those documents is why we know that WHO is transparent. > [@](#): > > Individuals having to email a public organization to explain their actions and influences is not transparency. Having to email a public organization to answer specific questions that you want specific answers to is an entirely normal thing to do. > [@](#): > > What is this referring to? I’m referring to what I posted. > [@](#): > > LOL. I’ll take this as you’ve dropped it. Good for you. > [@](#): > > I call Strawman. **Who’s talking about blood work?** Other than you. > [@Saturn\_Dreams](#): > > We should be happy with some information on blood transfusion safety? \*\*You \*\*did. You talked about it. I literally quoted you talking about it. Not a strawman. > [@](#): > > [Like this.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41702662) Why are you citing something that happened in 2017 in regards to an outbreak that happened in 2008? > [@](#): > > [I mean like this.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ebola-response/global-health-experts-accuse-who-of-egregious-failure-on-ebola-idUSKBN0TB10K20151122) Absolutely fair criticisms for sure. But nobody called for the dismantling of WHO. And that doesn’t negate the actions that WHO did during that outbreak, which was what you asked for and I cited. > [@](#): > > [I mean like this.](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/world-health-organization-protects-china-instead-of-coronavirus-victims) > It’s almost as if you actually don’t know what is the WHO is doing. I’m well aware what conservative commentators are saying on conservative news websites. > [@](#): > > there is none so blind as those who will not read. What part of “No I’m not going to be reading **again** ” did you not understand? > [@](#): > > Lots of questions about non-state actors. For a start, I’d like an explanation as to how they decide who gets how much influence when it comes to both policy-making and funding thereof. Have you read the framework? > [@](#): > > LOL. > You’re equating blood transfusion safety to a coronavirus pandemic? I’m not sure you understand what the WHO is actually supposed to be doing. Not equating at all. **WHO does a lot of different things**. You don’t seem to understand that. > [@](#): > > Admitting that is an important step. How are those mistakes going to be addressed in terms of consequences? I’m not talking about firings, although that could happen. More in terms of making sure the same mistakes don’t occur again. And how will they present that they admit their mistakes and future course of action? Will people have to send individual emails to find out? I’ve cited the [process](https://apps.who.int/gb/gov/). This is all covered in the [rules of proceedure](https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=179). > [@](#): > > America had a chance of a better outcome. Italy had a chance of a better outcome. China had a chance of a better outcome. Did Conte fuck up? Did Xi fuck up? I think at the end of all of this we will find out that a lot of people have fucked up. But everything happening in America right now is the responsibility of Americans. > [@](#): > > Does that include the people at WHO. If so, who fucked up at the WHO and in what way? Abso-fricken-lutely. WHO is responsible to its member nations and its up to its member nations, including the United States, to hold them to account. > [@](#): > > China, where the virus first emerged from, and the WHO, who’s mandate is to coordinate health response, is not responsible for the pandemic? Who is? I don’t get the question. Do you think a country should be responsible for a pandemic? An organization? > [@](#): > > What exactly is this “complex system”? How are mistakes corrected? I’ve cited the articles of governance. Its a lot to read, but if you do you’ve find all the answers. > [@](#): > > Actions speak louder than words. Evidence speaks for itself. There is little evidence for your claim. > [@](#): > > Is this the same Africa as where Tedros is from? The same Africa where China has been ramping up investment since 2018? The same Africa that China is using to expand their global influence? Wow. The conspiracy deepens. The same ratios existed \*\*before \*\*Tedros started as Director General, but don’t let that stop you. Perhaps, just perhaps mind you, Africa needs the resources substantially more than other parts of the world, which is why they get twice as much funding. > [@](#): > > You keep making my point for me. You know what they’re doing and where the money is going but you can’t think critically enough to see the deeper context. Sure. Pointing out that Africa gets twice as much funding as South-East Asia is evidence of [conspiracy]China’s influence on WHO[/conspiracy]. :: steps away from the thread :: I don’t suppose you could do a better job of joining the dots here? The funding is going into things like universal health coverage and improved access to quality essential health services, to changing the maternal mortality ratio, the under 5 mortality rate, fighting tuberculous and malaria, stuff like that. Its all in the budget. So what is it you think is really going on here? ---
**Author:** ![Saturn\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Saturn\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saturn_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2020, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/72 "2020-04-03T09:40:22Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …that isn’t how any of this works. This is a complete failure to understand the information provided by your cite. You originally claimed that the “Head of WHO’s satellite office in Zimbabwe” was responsible for this but this wasn’t what happened at all. This had nothing to do with WHO. There is no guilt by association. I’ve cited the work that WHO did during this outbreak. You’ve cited no evidence that this work was affected by what happened in a completely different agency. > > This has nothing to do with WHO. Look at what I wrote. I admitted the firing had nothing to do with the WHO. I also explained how WHO was complicit in not doing more to uncover the epidemic that the body that oversees them tried to cover up with the firing. > [@](#): > > Of course it was “self produced.” That’s how these things work. That’s a great way to present cherry-picked findings and hide some dirty laundry. How does being accountable to yourself equate to being accountable to the public? > [@](#): > > What part of “Lawrence Gostin **and the doctors that wrote the letter** ” did you fail to understand? What part of it wasn’t the opinion of a sole doctor did you fail to understand? > [@](#): > > No it isn’t. The ICD may list a disease, it then may list the many different treatments, and how some of those treatments are effective and how some of those treatments are not. That isn’t an endorsement. That’s data. LOL. CMT is included in the ICD to state that’s it not effective? > [@](#): > > Saying “You mean your lack of critical thinking” is not a mere disagreement. Its a personal attack. It wasn’t meant as such. I implored you to think more critically. > [@](#): > > And what do you want me to do about that? > > You cited this as an example of WHO bias. But its nothing more than an opinion. An anonymous opinion at that. So you are partial to it: so what? WHO isn’t going to be dismantled as a result of you being partial to an opinion. I don’t want you to do anything. It’s a finding by an NGO of WHO demonstrating bias which you asked for a cite for. > [@](#): > > WHO is required to follow its constitution: which I’ve cited. They aren’t playing politics. The member nations are playing politics. This doesn’t get “played out in court.” The member countries either choose to recognize Taiwan or they don’t. > > This is yet another failure to understand the process. And the Nazi’s were required to gas the Jews, right? You’re sliding down a slippery slope. > [@](#): > > What part of “I’m not going to read that nonsense Federalist article **again** ” did you fail to understand? Where was it that I asked you to read it again? > [@](#): > > Providing documents demonstrates a commitment to transparency. What is actually in those documents is why we know that WHO is transparent. Those documents are fan letters written by the WHO for the WHO. There’s little in those documents that answer for their actions, or lack thereof. > [@](#): > > Having to email a public organization to answer specific questions that you want specific answers to is an entirely normal thing to do. What specific questions? I’m looking for answers to their general accountability. > [@](#): > > I’m referring to what I posted. About what? > [@](#): > > I’ll take this as you’ve dropped it. Good for you. At least you’re finally admitting you didn’t have any answers. Good for you. > [@](#): > > \*\*You \*\*did. You talked about it. I literally quoted you talking about it. Not a strawman. You provided a link to some blood transfusion document nobody asked for. That’s a strawman. > [@](#): > > Why are you citing something that happened in 2017 in regards to an outbreak that happened in 2008? Mugabe is the despot that covered up the cholera epidemic whom WHO appoints as ambassador. You don’t see a problem with this? > [@](#): > > Absolutely fair criticisms for sure. But nobody called for the dismantling of WHO. And that doesn’t negate the actions that WHO did during that outbreak, which was what you asked for and I cited. I asked how WHO is being held accountable for their actions, and that cite was one example. > [@](#): > > I’m well aware what conservative commentators are saying on conservative news websites. You want to pick and choose the cites given? And you want me to accept at face value WHO’s documents on their actions? > [@](#): > > What part of “No I’m not going to be reading **again** ” did you not understand? Where was it that I asked you to read it again? > [@](#): > > Have you read the framework? I have. Still doesn’t answer my question. > [@](#): > > Not equating at all. **WHO does a lot of different things**. You don’t seem to understand that. Another strawman. We’re not talking about “a lot of different things” the WHO does. It’s about their lack of accountability for their actions. You don’t seem to understand that. > [@](#): > > I’ve cited the [process](https://apps.who.int/gb/gov/). This is all covered in the [rules of proceedure](https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=179). That document states consequences for non-state actors not complying with their framework. Where is the one on WHO’s non-compliance? > [@](#): > > I think at the end of all of this we will find out that a lot of people have fucked up. But everything happening in America right now is the responsibility of Americans. How about Italy and China? And what is WHO’s responsibility in all this? Is WHO allowed decide when to call pandemics and what information to give without taking on responsibility? > [@](#): > > Abso-fricken-lutely. WHO is responsible to its member nations and its up to its member nations, including the United States, to hold them to account. Read again. That wasn’t the question. > [@](#): > > I don’t get the question. Do you think a country should be responsible for a pandemic? An organization? I’ll rephrase. Does China and WHO not hold some responsibility in causing the pandemic? > [@](#): > > I’ve cited the articles of governance. Its a lot to read, but if you do you’ve find all the answers. You keep saying there’s answers without providing anything. I can’t find anything about this “complex system” you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Evidence speaks for itself. There is little evidence for your claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why I keep saying critical thinking is important. Don’t look at things superficially. > [@](#): > > Wow. The conspiracy deepens. The same ratios existed \*\*before \*\*Tedros started as Director General, but don’t let that stop you. Perhaps, just perhaps mind you, Africa needs the resources substantially more than other parts of the world, which is why they get twice as much funding. I’m sure Africa needs the resources. I don’t deny that. That doesn’t negate WHO conferring special interest towards China. > [@](#): > > Sure. > > Pointing out that Africa gets twice as much funding as South-East Asia is evidence of [conspiracy]China’s influence on WHO[/conspiracy]. > > :: steps away from the thread :: > > I don’t suppose you could do a better job of joining the dots here? The funding is going into things like universal health coverage and improved access to quality essential health services, to changing the maternal mortality ratio, the under 5 mortality rate, fighting tuberculous and malaria, stuff like that. Its all in the budget. So what is it you think is really going on here? You’ve got it wrong. It’s not about WHO’s funding to Africa (which I don’t deny they need), but China’s. China is being paid back under the table. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2020, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/73 "2020-04-04T00:05:08Z")
> [@Saturn\_Dreams](#): > > Look at what I wrote. I admitted the firing had nothing to do with the WHO. I also\*\* explained how\*\* WHO was complicit in not doing more to uncover the epidemic that the body that oversees them tried to cover up with the firing. …you didn’t “explain how” WHO was complicit. You merely asserted it without evidence. You didn’t quantify how much or how little they did to “uncover the epidemic.” You’ve just asserted that they did. The “body that allegedly was trying to cover it up” was also the body that commissioned the enquiry and published the damming report. > [@](#): > > That’s a great way to present cherry-picked findings and hide some dirty laundry. How does being accountable to yourself equate to being accountable to the public? Its not “cherry picking findings.” It isn’t “hiding dirty laundry.” Its entirely normal for an organization to create and publish their own articles of governance. Those article can and often do include methods of external auditing and that’s what happens here. WHO is accountable to its member nations. This is spelled out in the documentation. > [@](#): > > What part of it wasn’t the opinion of a sole doctor did you fail to understand? Probably the part where I explicitly stated it wasn’t the opinion of a sole doctor. What do you think it was I meant when I said " and the doctors that wrote the letter?" Why do you think I bolded it when you missed it the second time? And now you’ve missed it for the third time? > [@](#): > > LOL. CMT is included in the ICD to state that’s it not effective? Its not “CMT.” Its individual elements of CMT. Take a look at it yourself if you [like](https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/T36.0). Penicillin for example. The ICD says if “poisoned” with penicillin use this code, if overdosed use that code. That isn’t an endorsement. > [@](#): > > I don’t want you to do anything. It’s a finding by an NGO of WHO demonstrating bias which you asked for a cite for. I didn’t actually ask for this particular cite. I stated you hadn’t provided any evidence for your assertions. You chose to post this cite as evidence of your assertions. I don’t think its very strong evidence of anything. I don’t think the WHO report was wrong to post what they did. > [@](#): > > And the Nazi’s were required to gas the Jews, right? You’re sliding down a slippery slope. Not at all. You are simply failing to address the real crux of the problem. The international community have no desire to recognize Taiwan. That includes the United States of America. I think that’s wrong. But WHO is stuck here. They can’t just arbitrarily decide not to follow its own rules for the very reasons you are complaining about them in the first place. They are accountable for their actions, and they accountable to the member nations. If you want to change this then you need to complain to your reps. If you are seriously that concerned about Taiwan then you must lobby your reps to bring about change. It wouldn’t matter if another organization took the place of WHO. That organization would still match the international consensus and Taiwan would still be excluded. Change has to happen at the country level and if the United States were to officially recognize Taiwan then other countries would surely follow. > [@](#): > > Where was it that I asked you to read it again? The fact that I wasn’t going to read it again should tell you **I’ve already read it**. > [@](#): > > Those documents are fan letters written by the WHO for the WHO. There’s little in those documents that answer for their actions, or lack thereof. Oh nonsense. Malarky. 300 page documents that contain multiple citations and footnotes are not “fan letters.” The very first cite you provided? The one about Georges Tadonki, the head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Zimbabwe in 2008? Here is the original [judgement](https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/undt/judgments/undt-2013-032.pdf)and here is the [appeal](https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2014-UNAT-400.pdf). You’ve got that sort of information and important data analysis and reports on individual countries and reports on outbreaks and reports on pretty much everything. None of it could remotely be classified as “fan letters.” > [@](#): > > What specific questions? I’m looking for answers to their general accountability. The specific questions you wrote demanding that I answered. The specific questions I keep telling you to send to the email I’ve cited because they can gt back to you with specific answers. > [@](#): > > You provided a link to some blood transfusion document nobody asked for. That’s a strawman. No, that isn’t what a strawman is. I stated exactly why I provided the blood transfusion link. Originally I cited a link that showed the many things that WHO did. You claimed that that link wasnothing more than “bullshit PR about WHO from WHO about what they (want to) do. Nothing about results or lack thereof.” In response I told you I had clicked on a random link, I clicked on the first PDF report on the page and the blood transfusion document was the first to show up. That document demonstrated that it wasn’t just “bullshit PR.” It contained relevant information, results, metrics etc. From there you simply mocked the report. “We should be happy with some information on blood transfusion safety?” You decried. Then we went from there. Not a strawman. > [@](#): > > Mugabe is the despot that covered up the cholera epidemic whom WHO appoints as ambassador. You don’t see a problem with this? What part of “I think that was a stupid idea” did you not understand? But I provided information on what WHO did during that outbreak. And what happened many years later doesn’t change any of that. > [@](#): > > I asked how WHO is being held accountable for their actions, and that cite was one example. No that wasn’t the question you asked me (that I answered.) You mocked the blood transfusion report, then said why didn’t WHO look at something more serious like the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. That was the question I was answering. > [@](#): > > You want to pick and choose the cites given? And you want me to accept at face value WHO’s documents on their actions? You cited an opinion piece. Nothing wrong with that: but its hardly an authoritative source. > [@](#): > > Where was it that I asked you to read it again? The bit where I said I “read it again” indicates that **I have already read it** , rendering your snark irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I have. Still doesn’t answer my question. Well it should have. > [@](#): > > Another strawman. We’re not talking about “a lot of different things” the WHO does. It’s about their lack of accountability for their actions. You don’t seem to understand that. You really don’t understand how this strawman thing works, do you? We weren’t discussing “lack of accountability.” You were criticising me for equating blood transfusion safety to a coronavirus pandemic. That wasn’t what I was doing. WHO does a lot of different things. Its important to understand that context. > [@](#): > > That document states consequences for non-state actors not complying with their framework. Where is the one on WHO’s non-compliance? Please do keep up. I’ve cited the rules of governance. The non-state actors cite was a different cite that was posted upthread. > [@](#): > > How about Italy and China? And what is WHO’s responsibility in all this? Is WHO allowed decide when to call pandemics and what information to give without taking on responsibility? Who is allowed to decide when to call a pandemic, absolutely. There is nothing to stop individual countries from doing the same. And it will give information according to its mandate and rules of governance, and if they don’t then they will be held to account by the member nations. > [@](#): > > Read again. That wasn’t the question. My answer stands. The member nations will hold WHO to account. > [@](#): > > I’ll rephrase. Does China and WHO not hold some responsibility in causing the pandemic? In \*\*causing \*\*the pandemic? Nope. > [@](#): > > You keep saying there’s answers without providing anything. I can’t find anything about this “complex system” you’re talking about. WHO consists of a Director General and member nations and Study Groups and Scientific Groups and Collaborating Centres and Regional Directors and much, much more, and all of that has to weave together in a massive complex system that is held together by the rules of governance I keep on citing. > [@](#): > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why I keep saying critical thinking is important. Don’t look at things superficially. “Critical thinking” without evidence often leads to “elaborate conspiracy theories.” And that appears to be where we are headed here. > [@](#): > > I’m sure Africa needs the resources. I don’t deny that. That doesn’t negate WHO conferring special interest towards China. Are you backing off your conspiracy theory? The fact that the Director General comes from Africa is no longer important? > [@](#): > > You’ve got it wrong. It’s not about WHO’s funding to Africa (which I don’t deny they need), but China’s. **China is being paid back under the table.** This is a very specific allegation. If you have evidence of this I’d love to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Saturn\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Saturn\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saturn_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2020, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688/74 "2020-04-04T03:26:10Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you didn’t “explain how” WHO was complicit. You merely asserted it without evidence. You didn’t quantify how much or how little they did to “uncover the epidemic.” You’ve just asserted that they did. The “body that allegedly was trying to cover it up” was also the body that commissioned the enquiry and published the damming report. I’ve already explained their complicity by virtue of their connection to the UN. They didn’t step as nearly as quickly as they should have. > [@](#): > > Its not “cherry picking findings.” It isn’t “hiding dirty laundry.” Its entirely normal for an organization to create and publish their own articles of governance. Those article can and often do include methods of external auditing and that’s what happens here. WHO is accountable to its member nations. This is spelled out in the documentation. I’m saying their self-published documents don’t come close to meeting the threshold of accountability. Saying they’re accountable and demonstrating it are two different things. > [@](#): > > Probably the part where I explicitly stated it wasn’t the opinion of a sole doctor. What do you think it was I meant when I said " and the doctors that wrote the letter?" Why do you think I bolded it when you missed it the second time? And now you’ve missed it for the third time? Then you understand that it was several doctors that held that position. So how does that invalidate letter? > [@](#): > > Its not “CMT.” Its individual elements of CMT. Take a look at it yourself if you [like](https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/T36.0). Penicillin for example. The ICD says if “poisoned” with penicillin use this code, if overdosed use that code. That isn’t an endorsement. Individual elements make up CMT. That’s how drugs and medicine work. Every approved medicine has usage guidelines and warnings. So the WHO doesn’t validate the effectiveness of penicillin as well? > [@](#): > > I didn’t actually ask for this particular cite. I stated you hadn’t provided any evidence for your assertions. You chose to post this cite as evidence of your assertions. I don’t think its very strong evidence of anything. I don’t think the WHO report was wrong to post what they did. You asked for evidence, I gave it, and now your saying you didn’t ask for this particular one? A cite that an independent body submitted as evidence of WHO’s bias? It doesn’t matter you don’t agree with it. It’s still evidence. > [@](#): > > Not at all. You are simply failing to address the real crux of the problem. The international community have no desire to recognize Taiwan. That includes the United States of America. I think that’s wrong. But WHO is stuck here. They can’t just arbitrarily decide not to follow its own rules for the very reasons you are complaining about them in the first place. They are accountable for their actions, and they accountable to the member nations. > > If you want to change this then you need to complain to your reps. If you are seriously that concerned about Taiwan then you must lobby your reps to bring about change. It wouldn’t matter if another organization took the place of WHO. That organization would still match the international consensus and Taiwan would still be excluded. Change has to happen at the country level and if the United States were to officially recognize Taiwan then other countries would surely follow. You keep missing the crux of the problem. I understand WHO is following protocol when dealing with Taiwan. But they shouldn’t be. These are extraordinary times and they have to uphold their supposed mandate and be willing to break protocol. Just following orders was the Nazi’s excuse while killing millions of Jews. > [@](#): > > The fact that I wasn’t going to read it again should tell you **I’ve already read it**. I didn’t say you didn’t read it. You said you weren’t going to read it again and I said I didn’t ask you to. What part of that did you not understand? > [@](#): > > Oh nonsense. Malarky. 300 page documents that contain multiple citations and footnotes are not “fan letters.” The very first cite you provided? The one about Georges Tadonki, the head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Zimbabwe in 2008? Here is the original [judgement](https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/undt/judgments/undt-2013-032.pdf)and here is the [appeal](https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2014-UNAT-400.pdf). You’ve got that sort of information and important data analysis and reports on individual countries and reports on outbreaks and reports on pretty much everything. None of it could remotely be classified as “fan letters.” LOL. Malarky! Don’t you mean dagnabit? So when I first offered that cite you want to discount it because it has nothing to do with the WHO, but now you want to use a finding by a UN tribunal as evidence of WHO’s accountability? That’s rich. > [@](#): > > The specific questions you wrote demanding that I answered. The specific questions I keep telling you to send to the email I’ve cited because they can gt back to you with specific answers. You said those specific question could found in the documents you provided. You still haven’t demonstrated that. > [@](#): > > No, that isn’t what a strawman is. I stated exactly why I provided the blood transfusion link. Originally I cited a link that showed the many things that WHO did. You claimed that that link wasnothing more than > > “bullshit PR about WHO from WHO about what they (want to) do. Nothing about results or lack thereof.” > > In response I told you I had clicked on a random link, I clicked on the first PDF report on the page and the blood transfusion document was the first to show up. That document demonstrated that it wasn’t just “bullshit PR.” It contained relevant information, results, metrics etc. > > From there you simply mocked the report. “We should be happy with some information on blood transfusion safety?” You decried. Then we went from there. > > Not a strawman. Giving a link to something that was not being discussed is a strawman. We’re not discussing their lab work and how they present their findings. It’s about being accountable for their actions and failures and being transparent with it. > [@](#): > > What part of “I think that was a stupid idea” did you not understand? But I provided information on what WHO did during that outbreak. And what happened many years later doesn’t change any of that. What part of not being accountable do you not understand? How was WHO held accountable for their stupid idea? > [@](#): > > No that wasn’t the question you asked me (that I answered.) You mocked the blood transfusion report, then said why didn’t WHO look at something more serious like the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. That was the question I was answering. That was the question being asked. That is the point of this discussion. Keep on point. The Ebola outbreak was another example of WHO’s ineptitude which they still haven’t answered for. > [@](#): > > You cited an opinion piece. Nothing wrong with that: but its hardly an authoritative source. Where is this compendium of “authoritative sources”? Or is just something you make up along the way when you can’t respond? > [@](#): > > The bit where I said I “read it again” indicates that **I have already read it** , rendering your snark irrelevant. It wasn’t snark and that’s not what you said. You said you wouldn’t read it again. I asked where did I ask you to read it again. > [@](#): > > Well it should have. Should have, would have, could have is all you have? > [@](#): > > You really don’t understand how this strawman thing works, do you? We weren’t discussing “lack of accountability.” You were criticising me for equating blood transfusion safety to a coronavirus pandemic. That wasn’t what I was doing. WHO does a lot of different things. Its important to understand that context. Who cares what you were doing in your own fanciful mind? This was always about WHO’s lack of accountability. You throw out some useless document about blood transfusion that no one asked for and I brought it back on topic by offering the pandemic. Refuting WHO’s lack of accountability by saying “well here are their guidelines when doing blood transfusion” is a strawman. You don’t understand your fallacies. > [@](#): > > Please do keep up. I’ve cited the rules of governance. The non-state actors cite was a different cite that was posted upthread. You’d better read your own cite again. It most definitely makes statements on non-state actors with regards to framework. What it doesn’t do is and what I asked for is an explanation on consequences for WHO’s non-compliance. > [@](#): > > Who is allowed to decide when to call a pandemic, absolutely. There is nothing to stop individual countries from doing the same. And it will give information according to its mandate and rules of governance, and if they don’t then they will be held to account by the member nations. What does that mean? How will they be held to account? > [@](#): > > My answer stands. The member nations will hold WHO to account. My question stands. How will they be held to account? > [@](#): > > In \*\*causing \*\*the pandemic? Nope. Then who’s responsibility is it? What authority does WHO have if they don’t have to bear any responsibilities? > [@](#): > > WHO consists of a Director General and member nations and Study Groups and Scientific Groups and Collaborating Centres and Regional Directors and much, much more, and all of that has to weave together in a massive complex system that is held together by the rules of governance I keep on citing. LOL. Just what exactly is this “massive complex system” that’s out in the open and easy to understand and for all to see? I’m not expecting details. Just something more than naming groups, “much, much, more” and “massive complex system” > [@](#): > > “Critical thinking” without evidence often leads to “elaborate conspiracy theories.” And that appears to be where we are headed here. Adding CMT to the ICD is one evidence. China’s backing of Tedros is another. This is not a theory just off the top my head. But I guess it’s easier for you if just said it’s a conspiracy theory. > [@](#): > > Are you backing off your conspiracy theory? The fact that the Director General comes from Africa is no longer important? Another strawman. You have such a hard-on for them. What are we bargaining here? What does that have to do WHO conferring interest to China? > [@](#): > > This is a very specific allegation. If you have evidence of this I’d love to see it. CTM to ICD. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-who-survive-the-reckoning/850688.md?page=3)