WHO Accused of Overstating Swine Flu Threat
Two reports released Friday are critical of the World Health Organization's handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic -- which was dubbed "exaggeration on stilts" -- as well as the fact that some WHO scientists had previously been on the payroll of big drug companies.
Two reports released Friday are critical of the World Health Organization’s handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic — which was dubbed “exaggeration on stilts” — as well as the fact that some WHO scientists had previously been on the payroll of big drug companies.
Critics say the WHO’s response sent the world into an unnecessary tizzy, wasting huge sums of money and provoking “unjustified fears” within the populace. — JCL
WAIT, BEFORE YOU GO…Al Jazeera English:
A joint report into the handling of the H1N1 outbreak has found that some scientists who advised governments to stockpile drugs, had previously been on the payroll of big drug companies.
The report, published in the British Medical Journal, found World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on the use of medicine to treat the virus were prepared by experts who had received consulting fees from the top two manufacturers of the drugs — Roche and GlaxoSmithKline.
The WHO’s decision to name the flu a “pandemic” is also coming under scrutiny from European investigators, and stands accused of exaggerating the dangers of the H1N1 outbreak, which emerged in April last year.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
An immediate inquiry is sought amid findings Mohammed bin Salman appears to have had access to Washington Post owner's private messages.
The president-elect’s tendency to go after people who criticize him by sending false and provocative statements to his 17 million Twitter followers not only imperils these individuals. It also poses a clear and present danger to our democracy.
A new book by A.O. Scott, senior film critic for The New York Times and probably the country's most influential film critic, is a reflection on the nature of art criticism itself.
In a victory for free speech, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that employees of T-Mobile do not have to maintain what the company called a “positive work environment” at all times.
Once an emancipatory project predicated on the right to study and engage the past critically, history under the reign of neoliberalism has receded into a depoliticizing culture of consumerism, a wholesale attack on science, the glorification of military ideals, an embrace of the punishing state, and a nostalgic invocation of the greatest generation.
During performance reviews and other such discussions, focusing on what people may have done wrong makes them defensive and blinkers the mind, making it harder for them to change, psychologists say. Instead, conversations about what people would like to achieve are more likely to result in improvements.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.