Will the WHO survive the reckoning?

[Banquet_Bear]

@XT

IIRC, China gives around $5 billion (that we know of), compared to around $50 billion the US gives. Know what’s different? Where the money goes

…where does the money go? Are you talking about money from China? This goes somewhere different to where money from America goes? Cite?

and whether the money will get cut off or not.

Its not like America hasn’t already “cut its money supply off.” Pay your bills America.

That makes China’s $5 billion (no counting under the table stuff, just what they acknowledge…not that China would ever lie or anything)

Cite for the under the table stuff?

weigh more with the administrative parts of the WHO than the US funding. Or the UK funding.

Can you demonstrate this somehow?

If the WHO hadn’t done what they did initially wrt the information and response in China, then we wouldn’t be where we are today wrt this cluster fuck. Full stop.

Bullshit. The US administration has failed the American people. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to die as a result of the failures of Trump and his administration. We all knew more than enough months ago how bad this was and that we needed to do something about it. America simply failed to act and there was nothing the CCP or WHO could have done to change that.

This isn’t about politics in the US and conservatives verse liberals, it’s about corruption of a major international body that has had a direct impact on the world.

What corruption?

You are right.

Of course I’m right.

I can’t make a case, because what I’d use is similar to stuff you already handwaved away and dismissed with a few words. It’s not your fault, or the boards fault…you only know what you’ve been told by media you trust.

I’m perfectly capable of making my own decisions thanks. I’m perfectly capable of digging deeper, I’ve done a fair amount of research on this outside of the scope of what I’ve talked about here. There is very little substance to the claims you are making. If there was substance you would be able to bring it.

Of course, I could point out how many times people say (rightfully so IMHO) the same thing about those brainwashed by Fox News or other conservative media, so the irony is pretty heavy.

It isn’t lost on me how heavily propaganda plays into the accusations against WHO. That for me is always one of the first signs: and when the Federalist is the go-to-citation for this then the alarm bells go off. That doesn’t mean I dismiss the accusations out of hand. Far from it: I’ve looked into this quite a bit.

But I do concede…the fault is mine and the people who have tried and failed to get people to understand how grave the situation is wrt what the CCP is doing in general, **but specifically has done to make this crisis what it is today. **And the WHO has been right in their pocket, giving them legitimacy with people like you.

This is where your entire argument falls apart. A doctor in New York was just handed a rain poncho to be used as PPE for the entirety of their shift. This is a failure of the Federal government, its a failure and an indictment of the US healthcare system, its a failure and an indictment of capitalism. The CCP isn’t responsible for what is happening in America right now, they aren’t responsible for making the crisis what it is today. The CCP aren’t handing out ponchos instead of PPE. Deflection doesn’t abdicate responsibility. It isn’t WHO that needs a reckoning.

[Saturn_Dreams]

@Banquet_Bear

…you are missing the point. You are making the claim that the WHO is kowtowing to a member state or faction, you are **making a claim **that its favours have been bought in the way of funding, you are making the claim that WHO isn’t acting in the best interest of the world and that it isn’t acting in a fair, impartial way, and isn’t rising above political agenda.

Yet you have provided zero evidence that it does so.

1. Head of WHO’s satellite office in Zimbabwe fired after he tried to warn about a cholera epidemic in the region to shield despot and renowned human rights abuser Robert Mugabe and his party.
   How the UN Covered Up a Cholera Epidemic in Zimbabwe - The Atlantic

2. For its second act, WHO then goes against worldwide condemnation and appoints the same Mugabe as its goodwill ambassador. Did I mention he’s a human rights violator?
   Robert Mugabe made 'goodwill ambassador' by World Health Organisation

3. WHO DG Tedros, (before he was elected), covers up cholera epidemic to protect Ethiopia and Sudan’s feelings.
   'Fully Complicit In the Terrible Suffering': Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Blamed For 2017 Cholera Outbreaks | The National Interest

4. WHO goes against science and fact-based medicine to endorse Chinese quackery traditional medicine.
   Mao triumphant: The World Health Organization officially embraces traditional Chinese medicine quackery - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

5. WHO goes selectively blind and picks a bone with Israel’s handling of health conditions.
   WHO Singles Out Israel As Violator of Health Rights At Annual Meeting - UN Watch

6. Taiwan gets no information from WHO and cannot participate in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic because… China
   WHO Is Putting Lives at Risk by Blocking Taiwan

There’s more of where those came from…

No false dilemma, no red herring, no slippery slope, and for good measure no righteous indignation.

Why should we be worrying more about “Chinese money” than “US money?”

Re: Point missed
We should worry about money being the basis of any policy that affects global health at the individual level, whether it comes from China or USA. Are the lives of those that live in member states who can’t or refuse to pay dues worse less that those who pay?

Asking your to quantify **is **asking you to measure accountability and transparency. Yet you can’t do it. Just Asking Questions isn’t measuring accountability, you are Just Asking Questions.

WHO’s accountability cannot be measured without answers to those questions. How do you measure something with no basis? What factors exist to demonstrate their accountability?

Just Asking Questions again. I suspect if I do a bit of googling I could probably answer all of these questions. But I’m not doing your work for you.

See above. If you can answer them with a bit of googling, WHO should duly appoint you as their spokesperson.

You need to demonstrate these questions **haven’t **been answered if you want me to take your rant about dismantling WHO seriously. Because a handful of questions (that probably have answers) isn’t much of an argument.

How do you propose that I show something that doesn’t exist, (no accountability) or is hidden (no transparency)? I’m not surprised you aren’t aware of the irony but you just made my point for me.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Saturn_Dreams

1. Head of WHO’s satellite office in Zimbabwe fired after he tried to warn about a cholera epidemic in the region to shield despot and renowned human rights abuser Robert Mugabe and his party.
   How the UN Covered Up a Cholera Epidemic in Zimbabwe - The Atlantic

…the United Nations is a big organization. But the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is not WHO. Its something different. It has its own website. You aren’t off to a very good start. Even though this isn’t WHO: a UN Tribunal found he had been wrongfully fired. Everything that we know about this was because of accountability processes set up by the United Nations themselves.

2. For its second act, WHO then goes against worldwide condemnation and appoints the same Mugabe as its goodwill ambassador. Did I mention he’s a human rights violator?
   Robert Mugabe made 'goodwill ambassador' by World Health Organisation

Stupid decision. But stupidity isn’t the metrics we are operating on here. How does this fit the criteria you’ve laid out?

3. WHO DG Tedros, (before he was elected), covers up cholera epidemic to protect Ethiopia and Sudan’s feelings.
   'Fully Complicit In the Terrible Suffering': Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Blamed For 2017 Cholera Outbreaks | The National Interest

“Cover up” is a strong word to use over an argument over a classification. For more context:

@NYTimes

The accusation against Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was made by a prominent global health expert who is also an informal adviser to Dr. David Nabarro, a rival candidate in the race for W.H.O. director general.

…

Under the International Health Regulations, which apply to all W.H.O. members, countries must accurately report disease outbreaks. **But the W.H.O. can officially report only what countries say. **Historically, some countries have tried to cover up or play down outbreaks of human or animal diseases for fear that travel restrictions would be imposed, tourism would suffer or food exports would be curtailed — or simply as a matter of national pride.

…

Dr. Tedros compared the accusation to James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, announcing a reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server last year just before Election Day in the United States.

If Dr. Nabarro really did not know, “he is not in control of his team,” Dr. Tedros said. He said Dr. Nabarro’s backers have a “typical colonial mind-set aimed at winning at any cost and discrediting a candidate from a developing country.”

I’m not going to defend Dr Tedros here, I don’t know enough about the subject to make a judgement. But both this and your cite are specifically about Tedros, not WHO. I think calling for the breakup of an organization on the basis of an (allegedly) bad leader would be on a par with calling for the break up of the US Federal Government because the American people elected Trump. But YMMV.

4. WHO goes against science and fact-based medicine to endorse Chinese quackery traditional medicine.
   Mao triumphant: The World Health Organization officially embraces traditional Chinese medicine quackery - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

@CNN

Tarik Jasarevic, a spokesman for WHO, said traditional medicine diagnosis is poorly documented or not documented, and its inclusion in the ICD will “link traditional medicine practices with global norms and standard development.”

However, he added the inclusion of traditional medicine was “not an endorsement of the scientific validity of any Traditional Medicine practice or the efficacy of any Traditional Medicine intervention.”

What is the ICD?

@CNN

Details about traditional medicine will be included in the 11th version of the WHO’s global compendium, known as the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, or ICD, for the first time.

It’s an important document that categorizes thousands of diseases and medical diagnoses, influences how research is conducted and can be used to determine insurance coverage.

WHO said the “purpose of the ICD is to capture information on all health conditions and their treatment – the reason for including traditional medicine conditions and practices is that it is used by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/24/health/traditional-chinese-medicine-who-controversy-intl/index.html

WHO isn’t endorsing Traditional Chinese medicine no matter how much Orac insists that they are.

5. WHO goes selectively blind and picks a bone with Israel’s handling of health conditions.
   WHO Singles Out Israel As Violator of Health Rights At Annual Meeting - UN Watch

Whats the problem here? Are we not allowed to criticize Israel?

6. Taiwan gets no information from WHO and cannot participate in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic because… China
   WHO Is Putting Lives at Risk by Blocking Taiwan

Taiwan isn’t recognized by the United Nations. Taiwan isn’t recognized by the United States of America. Taiwan can of course participate in the fight against coronavirus and they are.

There’s more of where those came from…

There damn well better be because what you’ve posted is pretty weak-sauce.

Re: Point missed
We should worry about money being the basis of any policy that affects global health at the individual level, whether it comes from China or USA.

But you didn’t call out “USA money”. You called our “Chinese money.” Why did you do that?

Are the lives of those that live in member states who can’t or refuse to pay dues worse less that those who pay?

Isn’t this a question that you should be answering?

WHO’s accountability cannot be measured without answers to those questions. How do you measure something with no basis? What factors exist to demonstrate their accountability?

See above. If you can answer them with a bit of googling, WHO should duly appoint you as their spokesperson.

I found some of the answers by merely browsing the WHO website. I found more by you guessed it: by doing a bit of googling. I would share it here but…then I would be doing your work for you. So have you actually tried to find out the answers to these questions?

How do you propose that I show something that doesn’t exist, (no accountability) or is hidden (no transparency)? I’m not surprised you aren’t aware of the irony but you just made my point for me.

Two links:

World Health Organization (WHO)

Google

You are claiming that these things don’t exist. You are claiming these things are hidden. I know they are not because I found them.

You want to break up WHO because of something that you claim both doesn’t exist and is hidden so we can’t see it. I’m not surprised you aren’t aware of the irony but you just made my point for me. You don’t have a case.

[Saturn_Dreams]

@Banquet_Bear

…the United Nations is a big organization. But the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is not WHO. Its something different. It has its own website. You aren’t off to a very good start. Even though this isn’t WHO: a UN Tribunal found he had been wrongfully fired. Everything that we know about this was because of accountability processes set up by the United Nations themselves.

WHO is implicit in the UN’s cover-up by being an agency of their organization. How does it comply with their public health mandate to not take charge while politics was being played behind the scenes?

Stupid decision. But stupidity isn’t the metrics we are operating on here. How does this fit the criteria you’ve laid out?

Sure it is. How does WHO take responsibility for its stupidity? You still haven’t demonstrated who WHO is accountable to and how it does so.

“Cover up” is a strong word to use over an argument over a classification. For more context:

I’m not going to defend Dr Tedros here, I don’t know enough about the subject to make a judgement. But both this and your cite are specifically about Tedros, not WHO. I think calling for the breakup of an organization on the basis of an (allegedly) bad leader would be on a par with calling for the break up of the US Federal Government because the American people elected Trump. But YMMV.

I’m not worried about semantics. The WHO put a man who downplayed an epidemic in the interest of regional factions in charge of their organization and now we’re seeing history repeat itself with a larger threat on a global scale.

WHO isn’t endorsing Traditional Chinese medicine no matter how much Orac insists that they are.

Because you say so? Adding CTM to the ICD is an endorsement by its very nature. And quoting the WHO on why they added it to CTM is like asking Philip Morris for a quote on smoking. If you do some critical thinking and follow the money, you might understand WHO’s motives. Hint: it involves China.

Whats the problem here? Are we not allowed to criticize Israel?

You couldn’t even read to the third paragraph?

Out of 21 items on the meeting’s Agenda, only one—Item No. 14 against Israel—focused on a specific country. There was no agenda item or resolution on any other country, including Syria, where hospitals and medical infrastructure have suffered devastating bombings by Syrian and Russian forces; Yemen, where 19.7 million people lack access to health care service due to the current crisis; or Venezuela, where the health system has collapsed, causing millions to flee the country,”

Taiwan isn’t recognized by the United Nations. Taiwan isn’t recognized by the United States of America. Taiwan can of course participate in the fight against coronavirus and they are.

The UN is a whole other bag of flaming trash and their recognition (or America’s for that matter) of Taiwan is moot. The WHO should not play political footsie with China to the detriment of other another independent state, whether they are recognized as sovereign or not.

But you didn’t call out “USA money”. You called our “Chinese money.” Why did you do that?

Because that’s who the WHO is pandering to.

Isn’t this a question that you should be answering?

How so?

I found some of the answers by merely browsing the WHO website. I found more by you guessed it: by doing a bit of googling. I would share it here but…then I would be doing your work for you. So have you actually tried to find out the answers to these questions?

You haven’t answered anything.

1. Who does the WHO answer to for their decisions and actions?
2. How does WHO take responsibility for them and what consequences do they face?
3. What mechanism exists to address WHO’s inaction, lack of response, or an err in action?
4. How are priorities established within their mandates and how is that demonstrated?
5. How much of their funds are allocated to what projects and how is that determined?
6. What is the criteria for WHO to collaborate with non-state actors?
7. What is the nature of their relationship and how are they accredited?

I’m asking these questions because they are key in understanding WHO’s accountability and transparency. No one can answer them because they’re not divulged by WHO, or there is no answer. The very fact that you keep avoiding these questions is a demonstration of that.

You are claiming that these things don’t exist. You are claiming these things are hidden. I know they are not because I found them.

I doubt it, since you haven’t been able to come up with anything relevant.

You want to break up WHO because of something that you claim both doesn’t exist and is hidden so we can’t see it. I’m not surprised you aren’t aware of the irony but you just made my point for me. You don’t have a case.

I’m not making a case to break up the WHO. I’m pointing out their corruption and incompetency and why I lend little credence to them. But if they were to break up, I wouldn’t shed a tear. I’m not surprised you don’t understand how irony works. That isn’t it.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Saturn_Dreams

WHO is implicit in the UN’s cover-up by being an agency of their organization. How does it comply with their public health mandate to not take charge while politics was being played behind the scenes?

…it really does help to understand the nature of the organization you want to dismantle. WHO is a completely different organization to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Its like you are complaining about the FBI not dealing with something that happened in the CIA because they all fall under the umbrella of the US Federal Government.

This has noting at all do to with WHO.

Sure it is. How does WHO take responsibility for its stupidity? You still haven’t demonstrated who WHO is accountable to and how it does so.

I’m assuming you’ve read the Constitution of WHO at this point? You’ve read the basic documents of governance? When you’ve read them I’ll take any questions you have.

I’m not worried about semantics. The WHO put a man who downplayed an epidemic in the interest of regional factions in charge of their organization and now we’re seeing history repeat itself with a larger threat on a global scale.

Semantics are important if you want to dismantle an organization. We have an **allegation **that “the WHO put a man who downplayed an epidemic in the interest of regional factions in charge of their organization.” But an allegation is all we have at this point.

Because you say so? Adding CTM to the ICD is an endorsement by its very nature. And quoting the WHO on why they added it to CTM is like asking Philip Morris for a quote on smoking.

I did more than just quote someone from WHO. I researched what it is the ICD is. I linked to a more authoritative article than an opinion piece from an anonymous author.

If you do some **critical thinking **and follow the money, you might understand WHO’s motives. Hint: it involves China.

“Critical thinking” = “put the tinfoil hat on”.

Before we take your suggestion we dismantle an organization seriously you’ve got to do a lot more work than this.

You couldn’t even read to the third paragraph?

I read the third paragraph. The article is credited to someone using the name “unwatch”. Item 14 was titled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian
territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.” The conclusions from Item 14:

@from the report

Regarding Recommendations 1 and 6 that the Israeli authorities establish procedures which enable undelayed access for all Palestinian patients requiring specialized health care outside the occupied
Palestinian territory and that ensure that health care workers have unhindered access to their workplace and have possibilities for professional development and specialization.

…

37. The Palestinian Ministry of Health continued efforts to strengthen its referral system and has implemented memorandums of understanding with Israeli hospitals, contributing to reduced costs of referrals per patient. The Ministry of Health continued to implement activities to enhance its hospital
    information systems, to improve the quality, timeliness, availability and meta-analysis of hospital-level data, including through preparatory work to introduce diagnosis-related groups for hospital payments.

A72_33-en.pdf

I’m still not seeing the big problem here?

The UN is a whole other bag of flaming trash and their recognition (or America’s for that matter) of Taiwan is moot. The WHO should not play political footsie with China to the detriment of other another independent state, whether they are recognized as sovereign or not.

WHO is part of the UN. Almost the entire international community don’t recognize Taiwan. I’m not sure if you understand how the world actually works.

Because that’s who the WHO is pandering to.

Cite?

How so?

You asked the question “Are the lives of those that live in member states who can’t or refuse to pay dues worse less that those who pay?”

I’m going to assume when you said “worse” that you meant “worth.”

The answer to that question is obviously no they aren’t worth less.

But its a strawman question unless you can demonstrate that WHO treats those who live in member states who can’t or refuse to pay dues less than those who do pay. You need to bring the evidence.

You haven’t answered anything.

You haven’t **researched **anything. You are Just Asking Questions.

1. Who does the WHO answer to for their decisions and actions?
2. How does WHO take responsibility for them and what consequences do they face?
3. What mechanism exists to address WHO’s inaction, lack of response, or an err in action?
4. How are priorities established within their mandates and how is that demonstrated?
5. How much of their funds are allocated to what projects and how is that determined?
6. What is the criteria for WHO to collaborate with non-state actors?
7. What is the nature of their relationship and how are they accredited?

So you’ve started by reading this correct?

There is a lot of information there. 245 pages. But it does have a contents section so that might help you track down the relevant information. So take your time, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to find this information all in one go or overnight. But its a good starting point.

Alternatively WHO does have this:

How can I request information on WHO?
WHO makes information available in accordance with its policy on information disclosure. The policy aims to increase the amount of information available and will fully come into force progressively over a period of two years. A specific email address, informationrequest @ who . int will become operational by November 2017.

(Email link broken by me)

https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions

So rather than dismantling the WHO because you couldn’t find out a bit of information, how about you use the email address (specifically set up for people wanting more information) and you send those questions to them?

Let us know how that all works out.

I’m asking these questions because they are key in understanding WHO’s accountability and transparency. No one can answer them because they’re not divulged by WHO, or there is no answer.

LOL.

The very fact that you keep avoiding these questions is a demonstration of that.

It isn’t my job to prove that your conspiracy theory is correct.

I doubt it, since you haven’t been able to come up with anything relevant.

You would be incorrect.

I’m not making a case to break up the WHO. I’m pointing out their corruption and incompetency and why I lend little credence to them. But if they were to break up, I wouldn’t shed a tear. I’m not surprised you don’t understand how irony works. That isn’t it.

The WHO organization is a massive organization and with any massive organization you run the risk of corruption and incompetency. But what you’ve posted here ain’t it. I’m still not convinced you actually know what it is that WHO does. And if they were to break up what a gigantic vacuum it would leave with nobody and nothing to take its place.

[AK84]

Yes it will. Its performance has been pretty good in the circumstances. American Sinophobia notwithstanding.

[RTFirefly]

@Si_Amigo

Good question. Hard to say, they did delay their tour. Long Live Rock!

@dtilque

As long as Britain won’t get fooled again, they should be alright.

They better, they better, you bet.

[Saturn_Dreams]

@Banquet_Bear

…it really does help to understand the nature of the organization you want to dismantle. WHO is a completely different organization to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Its like you are complaining about the FBI not dealing with something that happened in the CIA because they all fall under the umbrella of the US Federal Government.

This has noting at all do to with WHO.

The WHO may not have had a direct hand in causing the person’s firing but they still failed to take charge of the epidemic that raged on while government officials tried to hide it. It’s another notch in many of their failures.

I’m assuming you’ve read the Constitution of WHO at this point? You’ve read the basic documents of governance? When you’ve read them I’ll take any questions you have.

Lots of writing on rules and regulations but nothing that outlines accountability.

Semantics are important if you want to dismantle an organization. We have an **allegation **that “the WHO put a man who downplayed an epidemic in the interest of regional factions in charge of their organization.” But an allegation is all we have at this point.

Tedros is not being tried in international court for a crime. There is no verdict. Just the fact that cholera was not properly declared under Tedros’ tenure as health minister of Ethiopia.

I did more than just quote someone from WHO. I researched what it is the ICD is. I linked to a more authoritative article than an opinion piece from an anonymous author.

So you researched what ICD is. So what? What does that have anything to do with WHO legitimizing scientifically unproven treatment?

“Critical thinking” = “put the tinfoil hat on”.

Before we take your suggestion we dismantle an organization seriously you’ve got to do a lot more work than this.

That’s what you think of critical thinking? You need to think critically with the available information and come to your own conclusions.

I read the third paragraph. The article is credited to someone using the name “unwatch”. Item 14 was titled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian
territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.” The conclusions from Item 14:

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA72/A72_33-en.pdf

I’m still not seeing the big problem here?

Then you lack comprehension skills. It’s there in black and white.

WHO is part of the UN. Almost the entire international community don’t recognize Taiwan. I’m not sure if you understand how the world actually works.

Political recognition has (should have) nothing to do with humanitarianism. I don’t think you understand how a body that claims that health is a “fundamental right of every human being” should work.

Cite?

Google WHO panders to China and you’ll have enough cites just on the first page.

You asked the question “Are the lives of those that live in member states who can’t or refuse to pay dues worse less that those who pay?”

I’m going to assume when you said “worse” that you meant “worth.”

The answer to that question is obviously no they aren’t worth less.

But its a strawman question unless you can demonstrate that WHO treats those who live in member states who can’t or refuse to pay dues less than those who do pay. You need to bring the evidence.

That was in response to your question about which country funding comes from. WHO’s policies that have worldwide effects should not be based on donor largesse.

You haven’t **researched **anything. You are Just Asking Questions.

You still haven’t answered anything. And I’m not expecting that you can.

So you’ve started by reading this correct?

There is a lot of information there. 245 pages. But it does have a contents section so that might help you track down the relevant information. So take your time, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to find this information all in one go or overnight. But its a good starting point.

I’ve seen that page before. Nothing there about mechanism of accountability.

Alternatively WHO does have this:

(Email link broken by me)

https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions

So rather than dismantling the WHO because you couldn’t find out a bit of information, how about you use the email address (specifically set up for people wanting more information) and you send those questions to them?

Let us know how that all works out.

Let us know when you’re able to provide anything on WHO’s accountability and transparency.

You would be incorrect.

LOL. (Am I doing this right?)

The WHO organization is a massive organization and with any massive organization you run the risk of corruption and incompetency. But what you’ve posted here ain’t it. I’m still not convinced you actually know what it is that WHO does. And if they were to break up what a gigantic vacuum it would leave with nobody and nothing to take its place.

Every organization has strengths and weaknesses. I understand WHO is not an evil organization. However, I’m not impressed with what the WHO has done and the error of its ways are numerous and glaring to be passed off as a one or two-off mistake. Moreover, it’s not the mistakes themselves that are at issue but rather the lack of addressing the mistakes through a post-operation assessment and no mechanism for remedial or correction. If WHO was a private company burning their own money, what they do is their own business. But as a global organization that feeds on public funds, there needs to be more accountability and be transparent about it, which you still haven’t been able to show how it does so.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Saturn_Dreams

The WHO may not have had a direct hand in causing the person’s firing but they still failed to take charge of the epidemic that raged on while government officials tried to hide it. It’s another notch in many of their failures.

…you claimed the Head of WHO’s satellite office in Zimbabwe was fired. That didn’t happen. That was the entire premise of your entire point.

Now you are making a different allegation: that WHO didn’t take charge during an epidemic while government officials tried to hide it. On what basis are you making this allegation? Your cite doesn’t mention WHO a single time. And its the responsibility of each member country to “take charge” during an epidemic. You don’t see WHO taking charge of what is happening in the United States right now. That isn’t how it all works.

Lots of writing on rules and regulations but nothing that outlines accountability.

So no questions then? Okay.

Tedros is not being tried in international court for a crime. There is no verdict. Just the fact that cholera was not properly declared under Tedros’ tenure as health minister of Ethiopia.

“Properly declared.” I thought you said this wasn’t a debate about semantics?

So you researched what ICD is. So what? What does that have anything to do with WHO legitimizing scientifically unproven treatment?

WHO hasn’t legitimized scientifically unproven treatment.

That’s what you think of critical thinking? You need to think critically with the available information and come to your own conclusions.

I have thought about it critically. I think that you haven’t thought critically with all the available information and you’ve come to some rather peculiar conclusions.

Then you lack comprehension skills. It’s there in black and white.

It is there in black and white. There isn’t a problem. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Political recognition has (should have) nothing to do with humanitarianism. I don’t think you understand how a body that claims that health is a “fundamental right of every human being” should work.

Not politically recognizing Taiwan doesn’t mean that health ceases to be a fundamental human right.

Google WHO panders to China and you’ll have enough cites just on the first page.

LOL.

The first link that comes up is “Just how much of an influence has China had on Hollywood this year?” dated 2016. The second is a Reddit comment that says “I hate how Hollywood is pandering to China so much.” The third is about a Chinese girl’s efforts to reunite a lonely baby yeti. The fifth is about Stephen Colbert’s Pander Express.

I think you need to work on your google algorithm skills.

That was in response to your question about which country funding comes from. WHO’s policies that have worldwide effects should not be based on donor largesse.

Yes. And do you have any evidence that this is the case?

You still haven’t answered anything.

I’m not obligated to.

And I’m not expecting that you can.

You still haven’t researched anything.

I’ve seen that page before. Nothing there about mechanism of accountability.

Why yes! Because I posted it just before.

Let us know when you’re able to provide anything on WHO’s accountability and transparency.

That isn’t my job. You’ve got a whole lot of questions you want answered. I’ve provided you the mechanism to find out the answers to that question. WHO has provided an email address for people like you who love to just ask questions.

In the time it took you to respond to me you could have copied and pasted your questions into an email and sent it to them. What is holding you back?

LOL. (Am I doing this right?)

Not really.

Every organization has strengths and weaknesses. I understand WHO is not an evil organization. However, I’m not impressed with what the WHO has done and the error of its ways are numerous and glaring to be passed off as a one or two-off mistake. Moreover, it’s not the mistakes themselves that are at issue but rather the lack of addressing the mistakes through a post-operation assessment and no mechanism for remedial or correction.

Yeah: but you admitted in your very first post that “you dislike and distrust The United Nations”. So it isn’t a surprise you aren’t impressed with what WHO has done. But you claim the “error of its ways are numerous” yet you can barely provide a handful of examples and when examined critically they pale in comparison to everything else they have done.

If WHO was a private company burning their own money, what they do is their own business. But as a global organization that feeds on public funds, there needs to be more accountability and be transparent about it, which you still haven’t been able to show how it does so.

Who do you think WHO should be accountable to? And what level of transparency do you think they should have? Want to know the budget? Here it is. That budget goes into depth about accountability as well. The information is out there. You just really aren’t looking hard enough.

There is going to be no reckoning for WHO. And WHO and China aren’t to blame for what is going to happen to the UK and what is going to happen to the United States.

[Saturn_Dreams]

@Banquet_Bear

…you claimed the Head of WHO’s satellite office in Zimbabwe was fired. That didn’t happen. That was the entire premise of your entire point.

Now you are making a different allegation: that WHO didn’t take charge during an epidemic while government officials tried to hide it. On what basis are you making this allegation? Your cite doesn’t mention WHO a single time. And its the responsibility of each member country to “take charge” during an epidemic. You don’t see WHO taking charge of what is happening in the United States right now. That isn’t how it all works.

What good is the WHO if they sit back and allow the cover up of an epidemic?

So no questions then? Okay.

1. Who does the WHO answer to for their decisions and actions?
2. How does WHO take responsibility for them and what consequences do they face?
3. What mechanism exists to address WHO’s inaction, lack of response, or an err in action?
4. How are priorities established within their mandates and how is that demonstrated?
5. How much of their funds are allocated to what projects and how is that determined?
6. What is the criteria for WHO to collaborate with non-state actors?
7. What is the nature of their relationship and how are they accredited?

“Properly declared.” I thought you said this wasn’t a debate about semantics?

It’s not.

WHO hasn’t legitimized scientifically unproven treatment.

CTM has no basis in science. Adding to WHO’s ICD is WHO legitimizing it.

I have thought about it critically. I think that you haven’t thought critically with all the available information and you’ve come to some rather peculiar conclusions.

You haven’t been able to demonstrate your critical thinking.

It is there in black and white. There isn’t a problem. Glad I could clear that up for you.

I’m glad you were finally able to understand WHO’s bias. See what happens when you read carefully?

Not politically recognizing Taiwan doesn’t mean that health ceases to be a fundamental human right.

That’s why Taiwan deserves to be at the table with WHO during this pandemic.

The first link that comes up is “Just how much of an influence has China had on Hollywood this year?” dated 2016. The second is a Reddit comment that says “I hate how Hollywood is pandering to China so much.” The third is about a Chinese girl’s efforts to reunite a lonely baby yeti. The fifth is about Stephen Colbert’s Pander Express.

I think you need to work on your google algorithm skills.

It’s not my problem you can’t enter what WHO stands for.

Yes. And do you have any evidence that this is the case?

We don’t know how WHO puts weight on policies because it’s not transparent

I’m not obligated to.

You mean you don’t know.

You still haven’t researched anything.

You can stall all you want but you still don’t have any answers.

Why yes! Because I posted it just before.

Where?

That isn’t my job. You’ve got a whole lot of questions you want answered. I’ve provided you the mechanism to find out the answers to that question. WHO has provided an email address for people like you who love to just ask questions.

In the time it took you to respond to me you could have copied and pasted your questions into an email and sent it to them. What is holding you back?

You said you had the answers so I wanted to see them. But I know you can’t show anything because you don’t have anything.

Yeah: but you admitted in your very first post that “you dislike and distrust The United Nations”. So it isn’t a surprise you aren’t impressed with what WHO has done. But you claim the “error of its ways are numerous” yet you can barely provide a handful of examples and when examined critically they pale in comparison to everything else they have done.

That page is the WHO tooting its own horn. It’s not what they’ve done. It’s what they (want to) do.

Who do you think WHO should be accountable to? And what level of transparency do you think they should have? Want to know the budget? Here it is. That budget goes into depth about accountability as well. The information is out there. You just really aren’t looking hard enough.

You don’t think the WHO should be accountable to anyone? I’ve already given you examples of how they’re not transparent by the questions I posed. Who asked about their budget? You keep saying the information is out there but have provided not a single one.

There is going to be no reckoning for WHO. And WHO and China aren’t to blame for what is going to happen to the UK and what is going to happen to the United States.

WHO is already facing a reckoning with another failure: this time with the coronavirus. There’s no one entity that is solely to blame but if this current situation is what we have with the WHO, how worse can it be without them.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Saturn_Dreams

What good is the WHO if they sit back and allow the cover up of an epidemic?

…what good was your cite if that cite didn’t actually show that “WHO sat back and allowed the cover up of an epidemic?” You have failed to show that WHO actually is involved in this story in any way. The original cite was about a completely different UN organization. Just concede the point already.

1. Who does the WHO answer to for their decisions and actions?
2. How does WHO take responsibility for them and what consequences do they face?
3. What mechanism exists to address WHO’s inaction, lack of response, or an err in action?
4. How are priorities established within their mandates and how is that demonstrated?
5. How much of their funds are allocated to what projects and how is that determined?
6. What is the criteria for WHO to collaborate with non-state actors?
7. What is the nature of their relationship and how are they accredited?

Those answers are all in the cited documentation. Do you have any other questions that aren’t answered by the cite?

Or you you could forward them the questions to the email I provided if digging through the linked cite is to much for you.

It’s not.

But it was. It wasn’t “properly declared” in the opinion of those who didn’t think it was properly declared.

CTM has no basis in science. Adding to WHO’s ICD is WHO legitimizing it.

The ICD is a health care classification system. Its a great big huge database of stuff. It provides diagnostic codes for classifying diseases as well as classifying sign, symptoms, causes and the addition of Chinese Medical Treatment is all about adding more data to the system. Much of Chinese Medical Treatment is quackery. Adding it to the ICD will help to demonstrate this.

You haven’t been able to demonstrate your critical thinking.

Incorrect.

I’m glad you were finally able to understand WHO’s bias. See what happens when you read carefully?

I did read it carefully. Which is why I concluded that there was no bias. There was nothing wrong with the report. WHO reported responsibly and did nothing wrong. UN Watch (and you) have simply gotten things wrong.

That’s why Taiwan deserves to be at the table with WHO during this pandemic.

Perhaps you should pass that advice along to the United States who could lobby for this at the next United Nations council meeting. WHO is a product of its membership. If you think that Taiwan deserves a seat at the table then elect people to government to lobby for those changes. Change is within your grasp.

It’s not my problem you can’t enter what WHO stands for.

You told me what to google for. Its not my fault you gave me bad instructions.

We don’t know how WHO puts weight on policies because it’s not transparent

What is it you don’t know and couldn’t find out by sending an email?

You mean you don’t know.

I don’t know what?

You can stall all you want but you still don’t have any answers.

I’ve given you the answers.

Where?

I literally posted the link to that very page in the very same post you responded to.

You said you had the answers so I wanted to see them. But I know you can’t show anything because you don’t have anything.

And this says it all.

This isn’t about me. I’m not obliged to do anything.

You’ve got a lot of questions that could be answered by directing them at the people that can give them to you directly. They have an email address especially for people like you.

You refuse to email them.

Because you don’t actually want the answers. Because that would shatter the narrative you’ve invented.

That page is the WHO tooting its own horn. It’s not what they’ve done. It’s what they (want to) do.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. These aren’t just “aspirational goals.” Are you not able to click a few links and see that what they have listed here correspond to things they have actually done?

You don’t think the WHO should be accountable to anyone?

They are accountable to the UN EvaluationGroup, which is accountable to the UN, which is accountable to its member countries. Which you would have known if you had simply read the cites I had provided.

I’ve already given you examples of how they’re not transparent by the questions I posed. Who asked about their budget? You keep saying the information is out there but have provided not a single one.

LOL

Do you know what a budget is used for? To show you how much of their funds are allocated to what projects and how is that determined. Who asked about their budget? You did.

WHO is already facing a reckoning with another failure: this time with the coronavirus. There’s no one entity that is solely to blame but if this current situation is what we have with the WHO, how worse can it be without them.

Without WHO right now it would be significantly fucking worse. I can’t believe that was a serious question. Imagine all the things that wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t an international agency that operated independent of borders providing information, coordination, and funding to manage expert networks. In the absence of WHO who do you think would have stepped up? China has been accused of “fudging the numbers.” The United States has demonstrated itself to be completely incompetent. So without an agency in the middle coordinating information, helping out nations that don’t have the budgets of America or the EU, what is it do you think would have taken its place?

[Saturn_Dreams]

@Banquet_Bear

…what good was your cite if that cite didn’t actually show that “WHO sat back and allowed the cover up of an epidemic?” You have failed to show that WHO actually is involved in this story in any way. The original cite was about a completely different UN organization. Just concede the point already.

I agree it wasn’t WHO who tried to fire whistle blower. It also wasn’t WHO who did anything to help the epidemic the whistle blower was trying to blow the cover on.

Those answers are all in the cited documentation. Do you have any other questions that aren’t answered by the cite?

There’s nothing relevant in that document.

But it was. It wasn’t “properly declared” in the opinion of those who didn’t think it was properly declared.

Who’s opinion is that? Who’s deciding whether it was properly declared or not? The facts stand that there was no declaration.

The ICD is a health care classification system. Its a great big huge database of stuff. It provides diagnostic codes for classifying diseases as well as classifying sign, symptoms, causes and the addition of Chinese Medical Treatment is all about adding more data to the system. Much of Chinese Medical Treatment is quackery. Adding it to the ICD will help to demonstrate this.

Adding CMT to ICD is to help show that it’s quackery? How do you come to that conclusion? You don’t know how ridiculous that sounds…

Incorrect.

That still doesn’t demonstrate your critical thinking.

I did read it carefully. Which is why I concluded that there was no bias. There was nothing wrong with the report. WHO reported responsibly and did nothing wrong. UN Watch (and you) have simply gotten things wrong.

You’re free to your own conclusions but that doesn’t change mine or that of the NGO to monitor the UN and its related agencies. I think they’re a bit more reliable.

Perhaps you should pass that advice along to the United States who could lobby for this at the next United Nations council meeting. WHO is a product of its membership. If you think that Taiwan deserves a seat at the table then elect people to government to lobby for those changes. Change is within your grasp.

WHO playing politics should not be in their mandate. It should be about saving lives.

You told me what to google for. Its not my fault you gave me bad instructions.

Forget critical. Try regular thinking.

What is it you don’t know and couldn’t find out by sending an email?

It’s not something that should be accessible be email only. It should be open for all to see.

I don’t know what?

Any answers.

I’ve given you the answers.

No you haven’t.

I literally posted the link to that very page in the very same post you responded to.

That link didn’t answer anything.

And this says it all.

This isn’t about me. I’m not obliged to do anything.

You’re not obliged to do anything but don’t lie about having answers when you don’t.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. These aren’t just “aspirational goals.” Are you not able to click a few links and see that what they have listed here correspond to things they have actually done?

More bullshit PR about WHO from WHO about what they (want to) do. Nothing about results or lack thereof.

They are accountable to the UN EvaluationGroup, which is accountable to the UN, which is accountable to its member countries. Which you would have known if you had simply read the cites I had provided.

I’m familiar with the UN evaluation office. One group from the UN evaluating another group from the UN is one thing but when there are no consequences to actions it doesn’t meet the threshold for accountability. The UN itself is unaccountable so it’s no surprise that WHO is the same.

Do you know what a budget is used for? To show you how much of their funds are allocated to what projects and how is that determined. Who asked about their budget? You did.

The question was about fund allocation and how its determined in terms of showing how their policies are shaped or slanted towards. Numbers themselves don’t mean much when the WHO can’t clearly demonstrate their influences.

Without WHO right now it would be significantly fucking worse.

Unless you have a cite that’s nothing but conjecture.
We already have close to a million infected worldwide. Nearly 50k dead. No peak in sight. And we’re supposed to be thankful for the WHO? You can keep drinking your kool-aid.

I can’t believe that was a serious question. Imagine all the things that wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t an international agency that operated independent of borders providing information, coordination, and funding to manage expert networks. In the absence of WHO who do you think would have stepped up? China has been accused of “fudging the numbers.” The United States has demonstrated itself to be completely incompetent. So without an agency in the middle coordinating information, helping out nations that don’t have the budgets of America or the EU, what is it do you think would have taken its place?

How about a better alternative to the WHO, or reforming it. A body that acts swiftly and decidedly. One that doesn’t allow China (or any other nation) influence their actions. One that has the best interest of the people’s health in mind rather than who they need to pay political points to.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Saturn_Dreams

I agree it wasn’t WHO who tried to fire whistle blower. It also wasn’t WHO who did anything to help the epidemic the whistle blower was trying to blow the cover on.

…the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is not WHO. This was the WHO response to the 2008 outbreak. What are you even talking about at the moment? Can you provide any evidence to support the assertion that WHO did nothing?

There’s nothing relevant in that document.

Except everything that was relevant in that document.

**Who’s opinion is that? **

Did you not read the cites? Its all pretty straightforward.

Adding CMT to ICD is to help show that it’s quackery? How do you come to that conclusion? You don’t know how ridiculous that sounds…

Because of the nature of what the ICD is.

That still doesn’t demonstrate your critical thinking.

My critical thinking has been demonstrated throughout the thread.

You’re free to your own conclusions but that doesn’t change mine or that of the NGO to monitor the UN and its related agencies. I think they’re a bit more reliable.

You are free to reach your own conclusions. I cited sections from the report where Israel was mentioned. They were highly relevant and important.

WHO playing politics should not be in their mandate. It should be about saving lives.

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.

Forget critical. Try regular thinking.

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.

It’s not something that should be accessible be email only. It should be open for all to see.

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.

Then guess what? You can plaster the answers onto your personal blog. You can call it “Here are the secrets that WHO are trying to hide!!!” You will get internet famous!

Any answers.

I’ve given you plenty of answers.

No you haven’t.

:: sigh :: yes I have.

That link didn’t answer anything.

But you agree I posted it yes?

You’re not obliged to do anything but don’t lie about having answers when you don’t.

Accusing other posters of lying is a bad thing. I haven’t lied here.

More bullshit PR about WHO from WHO about what they (want to) do. Nothing about results or lack thereof.

I just clicked on one random link.

Blood transfusion safety

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.

I’m familiar with the UN evaluation office. One group from the UN evaluating another group from the UN is one thing but when there are no consequences to actions it doesn’t meet the threshold for accountability. The UN itself is unaccountable so it’s no surprise that WHO is the same.

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.

Would it surprise you to learn that yes, WHO are subject to external auditing as well? Did you know you could find that information by reading the cites I’ve already provided?

The question was about fund allocation and how its determined in terms of showing how their policies are shaped or slanted towards. Numbers themselves don’t mean much when the WHO can’t clearly demonstrate their influences.

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 outthere. 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.

Unless you have a cite that’s nothing but conjecture.
We already have close to a million infected worldwide. Nearly 50k dead. No peak in sight. And we’re supposed to be thankful for the WHO? You can keep drinking your kool-aid.

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(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.

How about a better alternative to the WHO, or reforming it.

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?

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?

A body that acts swiftly and decidedly.

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.”

One that doesn’t allow China (or any other nation) influence their actions.

Thisis 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.

One that has the best interest of the people’s health in mind rather than who they need to pay political points to.

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.

[madsircool]

@Banquet_Bear

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.

this is absolute bullshit. The WHO is willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk because China said so.

Why Taiwan has become a problem for WHO

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-taiwan-who/taiwan-says-who-not-sharing-coronavirus-information-it-provides-pressing-complaints-idUSKBN21H1AU

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-30/taiwan-hits-back-at-who-over-collaboration-claims-in-virus-fight

Taiwan’s lack of membership of the U.N. body, due to Chinese pressure which claims the island as its own with no right to the trappings of statehood, has infuriated the Taiwanese government during the outbreak of the virus.

Taiwan’s government has said that keeping it out of the WHO during the outbreak amounts to playing politics with Taiwanese lives, even as the island has won plaudits for keeping its case toll so comparatively low thanks to early detection and control methods.

[Smapti]

@madsircool

this is absolute bullshit. The WHO is willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk because China said so.

FYI, the United States of America doesn’t recognize the ROC as a sovereign nation either, and hasn’t had diplomatic relations with it since 1979.

By your logic, that means the US government is “willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk because China said so”.

[Banquet_Bear]

@madsircool

this is absolute bullshit. The WHO is willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk **because China said so.
**
Why Taiwan has become a problem for WHO

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-taiwan-who/taiwan-says-who-not-sharing-coronavirus-information-it-provides-pressing-complaints-idUSKBN21H1AU

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

…from your first cite:

Following Mr Aylward’s interview, the WHO said the question of Taiwanese membership was not for its staff to answer, saying that it is instead “up to WHO member states”.

It also said it has been working with Taiwanese health experts and authorities to ensure speedy information flow and to share best practices.

Our correspondent says that while this is true, and Taiwan can access WHO information shares with members and share expertise through designated communications channels, it cannot communicate as efficiently or be heard as clearly as a member would be.

…if you want to change the WHO mandate on who is and isn’t a member state then you need to lobby the United States government to recognize Taiwan. Its up to the member states to decide who is and isn’t a country and the US don’t recognize Taiwan. That doesn’t mean Taiwan can’t access WHO information or access WHO expertise, as your cite clearly demonstrates. This isn’t because “China says so.” Its because almost the entire international community says so. If you want to change that then make your voice heard.

[madsircool]

@Smapti

FYI, the United States of America doesn’t recognize the ROC as a sovereign nation either, and hasn’t had diplomatic relations with it since 1979.

By your logic, that means the US government is “willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk because China said so”.

What? Besides being a non sequitur, your cite is outdated.

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/26/world/asia/26reuters-taiwan-usa.html

The Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act, signed by Trump into law on Thursday with strong bipartisan support, requires the U.S. State Department to report to Congress on steps taken to strengthen Taiwan’s diplomatic relations.

It also requires the United States to “alter” engagement with nations that undermine Taiwan’s security or prosperity.

[madsircool]

@Banquet_Bear

…from your first cite:

…if you want to change the WHO mandate on who is and isn’t a member state then you need to lobby the United States government to recognize Taiwan. Its up to the member states to decide who is and isn’t a country and the US don’t recognize Taiwan. That doesn’t mean Taiwan can’t access WHO information or access WHO expertise, as your cite clearly demonstrates. This isn’t because “China says so.” Its because almost the entire international community says so. If you want to change that then make your voice heard.

See the above link. How wrong you are.

[Smapti]

@madsircool

What? Besides being a non sequitur, your cite is outdated.

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/26/world/asia/26reuters-taiwan-usa.html

@Your own cite

While the United States, like most countries, has no official relations with Taiwan, the Trump administration has ramped up support for the island, with arms sales and laws to help Taiwan deal with pressure from China…

Taiwan now only has diplomatic relations with 15 countries, almost all small and developing nations like Nauru, Belize and Honduras.

This bill does not recognize the ROC as the sovereign government of Taiwan nor abolish the US’ recognition of the One-China Policy.

It is therefore your assertion that the US government is “willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk because China said so”.

[madsircool]

@Smapti

This bill does not recognize the ROC as the sovereign government of Taiwan nor abolish the US’ recognition of the One-China Policy.

It is therefore your assertion that the US government is “willing to place the lives of 23 million people at risk because China said so”.

I dont think you understand what you are posting.