…are you withdrawing the claim that I “dont like the USA?”
Withdrawn and I apologize for it.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.
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.
…its really hard to believe that we were talking about the disgusting treatment of the Uighurs 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.
It’s about the cover up of the cholera outbreak that WHO was complicit in.
Except that it wasn’t
There wasn’t much in that document that was relevant. Did you read your own cite?
So you finally agree that WHO is endorsing CMT.
You mean your lack of critical thinking.
So you didn’t understand the bias shown by WHO?
Unlike the WHO, it is not America’s mandate to uphold the health of all people, including those of Taiwan.
Again, try some regular thinking. You should be able understand how search engines work.
It freaking isn’t! Your cites haven’t answered little about their accountability and less about transparency.
You still haven’t answered anything
:: sigh :: no you haven’t.
Posted what?
There’s no evidence you haven’t
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?
Read again. Accountability in name without consequences is not accountability in practice.
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(in January) I think it would have made a significant difference to the death toll in America.
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.
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.
If the virus was looked into earlier and taken more seriously we would have had a better chance of a better outcome.
I saw from that page many projects they have their hand in. The problem is when their mistakes go unchecked.
I don’t think the WHO is going to publish a paper on how they take Chinese money to help legitimize them.
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.
…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?
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.
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?
If I had intended to “agree that WHO is endorsing CMT” then I would have said so. I didn’t: so I haven’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That I posted what I said I had posted when and where I posted it.
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.
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?
Like this? Which I’ve already cited?
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.
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 an entire section in the basic documents of governance that outlines the framework for engagement with non-state actors. The nature of their “partnerships” with non-state actors is clearly outlined in that framework.
What is it exactly are you missing?
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.
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.
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?”
The Governor of Georgia said yesterday “He Only Just Found Out The Coronavirus Can Be Transmitted By People Without Symptoms.”
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.
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.
“WHO taking Chinese money to help legitimize them” is conspiracy-level talk.
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.
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 is one from Time:
See, right there in the title? Let’s see what it says, ehe?
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.
Let’s see, here 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? 
Let’s see if there is more, ehe?
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.
…you are citing editorial comment. That the editorial comment is reflected in the headline is not surprising in the least.
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.
This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.
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.
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.
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.
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 just Gostin.
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 ad-hominems. I agree we can disagree. And I think this is all we’re doing. Having a disagreement.
An example of our disagreement. I agreed with it. An impartial UN overseer agreed with it. I’m partial to the impartial party.
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.
There is none so blind as those who will not read.
“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.
Individuals having to email a public organization to explain their actions and influences is not transparency.
What is this referring to?
LOL.
I call Strawman. Who’s talking about blood work? Other than you.
I mean like this.
It’s almost as if you actually don’t know what is the WHO is doing.
there is none so blind as those who will not read.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Does that include the people at WHO. If so, who fucked up at the WHO and in what way?
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?
What exactly is this “complex system”? How are mistakes corrected?
Actions speak louder than words.
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.
…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.
Of course it was “self produced.” That’s how these things work.
What part of “Lawrence Gostin and the doctors that wrote the letter” 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.
Saying “You mean your lack of critical thinking” is not a mere disagreement. Its a personal attack.
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.
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.
What part of “I’m not going to read that nonsense Federalist article again” did you fail to understand?
Providing documents demonstrates a commitment to transparency. What is actually in those documents is why we know that WHO is transparent.
Having to email a public organization to answer specific questions that you want specific answers to is an entirely normal thing to do.
I’m referring to what I posted.
I’ll take this as you’ve dropped it. Good for you.
**You **did. You talked about it. I literally quoted you talking about it. Not a strawman.
Why are you citing something that happened in 2017 in regards to an outbreak that happened in 2008?
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’m well aware what conservative commentators are saying on conservative news websites.
What part of “No I’m not going to be reading again” did you not understand?
Have you read the framework?
Not equating at all. WHO does a lot of different things. You don’t seem to understand that.
I’ve cited the process. This is all covered in the rules of proceedure.
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.
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.
I don’t get the question. Do you think a country should be responsible for a pandemic? An organization?
I’ve cited the articles of governance. Its a lot to read, but if you do you’ve find all the answers.
Evidence speaks for itself. There is little evidence for your claim.
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.
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?
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.
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 it wasn’t the opinion of a sole doctor did you fail to understand?
LOL. CMT is included in the ICD to state that’s it not effective?
It wasn’t meant as such. I implored you to think more critically.
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.
And the Nazi’s were required to gas the Jews, right? You’re sliding down a slippery slope.
Where was it that I asked you to read it again?
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.
What specific questions? I’m looking for answers to their general accountability.
About what?
At least you’re finally admitting you didn’t have any answers. Good for you.
You provided a link to some blood transfusion document nobody asked for. That’s 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?
I asked how WHO is being held accountable for their actions, and that cite was one example.
You want to pick and choose the cites given? And you want me to accept at face value WHO’s documents on their actions?
Where was it that I asked you to read it again?
I have. Still doesn’t answer my question.
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.
That document states consequences for non-state actors not complying with their framework. Where is the one on WHO’s non-compliance?
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?
Read again. That wasn’t the question.
I’ll rephrase. Does China and WHO not hold some responsibility in causing the pandemic?
You keep saying there’s answers without providing anything. I can’t find anything about this “complex system” you’re talking about.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why I keep saying critical thinking is important. Don’t look at things superficially.
I’m sure Africa needs the resources. I don’t deny that. That doesn’t negate WHO conferring special interest towards China.
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.
…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.
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.
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?
Its not “CMT.” Its individual elements of CMT. Take a look at it yourself if you like. Penicillin for example. The ICD says if “poisoned” with penicillin use this code, if overdosed use that code. That isn’t an endorsement.
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.
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.
The fact that I wasn’t going to read it again should tell you I’ve already read it.
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 judgementand here is the appeal. 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 cited an opinion piece. Nothing wrong with that: but its hardly an authoritative source.
The bit where I said I “read it again” indicates that I have already read it, rendering your snark irrelevant.
Well it should 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.
Please do keep up. I’ve cited the rules of governance. The non-state actors cite was a different cite that was posted upthread.
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.
My answer stands. The member nations will hold WHO to account.
In **causing **the pandemic? Nope.
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.
“Critical thinking” without evidence often leads to “elaborate conspiracy theories.” And that appears to be where we are headed here.
Are you backing off your conspiracy theory? The fact that the Director General comes from Africa is no longer important?
This is a very specific allegation. If you have evidence of this I’d love to see it.
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.
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.
Then you understand that it was several doctors that held that position. So how does that invalidate letter?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
You said those specific question could found in the documents you provided. You still haven’t demonstrated that.
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 not being accountable do you not understand? How was WHO held accountable for their stupid idea?
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.
Where is this compendium of “authoritative sources”? Or is just something you make up along the way when you can’t respond?
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.
Should have, would have, could have is all you have?
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.
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.
What does that mean? How will they be held to account?
My question stands. How will they be held to account?
Then who’s responsibility is it? What authority does WHO have if they don’t have to bear any responsibilities?
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”
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.
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?
CTM to ICD.