"Swine"-dled?

In June of 2009, the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 outbreak a pandemic. Massive amounts of vaccinations were stockpiled and people were quick to purchase injections of the immunizing pig repellent. Money poured into pharmaceutical corporations’ bank accounts. When the pandemic drew to a close and it was discovered that many WHO board members have ties to the pharmaceutical industry, debates arose concerning whether the World Health Organization was interested in profits, as Tim Locke of WebMD believes, or if it was focused on public health and therefore deserves gratitude, as proposed by the author of “After the pandemic” in Nature magazine.

Locke writes of the Council of Europe’s displeasure with the World Health Organization. According to his article, the Council believes the WHO led the European public to waste large sums of money for their own personal gain. The pandemic was far less severe than the World Health Organization claimed it would be, and the people were therefore misled. The author of “After the pandemic” agrees that a few mistakes were made, but finds the WHO deserving of our appreciation for their overall handling of the outbreak.

Both articles acknowledge a few key facts:

• The World Health Organization’s expert advisors were linked to the pharmaceutical industry.
• These pharmaceutical links may have created financial interests in the public health emergency.
• The World Health Organization withheld the names of these members until August 2010.

However, they differ in their responses to these facts.

WHO proponents believe that members of the pharmaceutical industry have the greatest knowledge of vaccines and therefore belong on advising committees. The severity was overestimated because pandemics are often unpredictable and the WHO prefers to be safe rather than sorry (“After the pandemic”). The Council of Europe, on the other hand, thinks the advisors were placed on the committee in an effort to persuade the WHO to exaggerate the severity of the pandemic. Their motive was to scare the public into purchasing vaccinations, thus boosting pharmaceutical profits (Locke). Locke does, however, acknowledge the World Health Organization’s response to the Council’s accusations, noting the safeguards in place to avoid conflicts of interest.

Because Locke’s article sometimes wavers in its opinion of the WHO’s actions, it offers a weak argument. The true problem seems to be not the questionable committee members, but the withholding of their names. Both authors agree that the failure to release the advisors’ names makes the World Health Organization appear to be hiding something. The organization’s secrecy rises suspicions regardless of innocence of motive.

While we may never know the true grounds for the vaccination stockpile, we must appreciate the lives that the immunizations saved. So WHO advisors, be you selfish money mongers or selfless humanitarians, my thanks be to you, preventers of the flu.


Image: http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/2009/04/023437.htm

Nature Magazine’s “After the Pandemic”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/full/466903b.html

Tim Locke’s “Europe criticizes WHO over swine flu ‘scare’ ”
http://www.webmd.boots.com/cold-and-flu/news/20100625/europe-criticises-who-over-swine-flu-scare