This is how the Pharma-WHO cabal got started

[DrMA]

WHO has taken down this speech in which it promised Big Pharma "high returns" for its donations. Fortunately, nothing on the web is ever lost.

Dr. G.H. Brundtland: Health for the 21st Century

 

[Nermal]

I've seen much worse, and so have you. I mean, any investment anticipates returns, and this at least doesn't demonize vape as distinct from tobacco use.

In conclusion: We are facing major health challenges. There is a real scope for meeting them. It is within our grasp to drastically reduce the global burden of disease. WHO is determined to do its part. And I am happy to welcome other stakeholders - and that includes industry - to join us - because investing in health yields high returns.

 

[readeuler]

I don't know, it's fairly damning, and enlightening.

It's entirely conceivable that WHO truly had altruism in mind; that they're just bursting at the seems with this desire to make people more healthy.

While this certainly doesn't say anythingoutright, I can start to imagine the monetary mechanisms that cause the WHO to move.

In my mind, they're the biggest riddle. The antis, government, and pharma are relatively easy to explain; neuroses, moneypower, and money, respectively.

While I suspect WHO is primarily motivated by moneypower, it's not at all clear how their cash flows behave, or where they come from/go to.

 

[retired1]

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...y-untrustworthy-and-not-evidence-based-study/

In the confusing and fast-changing world of medicine, few voices carry as much weight as that of the World Health Organization.

But a new, Canadian-led analysis takes a poke at that reputation, concluding the UN agency often makes strong recommendations on how to treat or prevent illness based on weak evidence, potentially leading to patients getting less-than-optimum care.

The study concluded that 73 of 289 strong recommendations the agency issued over a recent five-year stretch — on topics ranging from maternal health to tuberculosis — were based on low-quality evidence and warranted only conditional advice.

 

[LaraC]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/0...y-untrustworthy-and-not-evidence-based-study/

Excerpt:

"After concerns were raised seven years ago, the agency [WHO] implemented a system, called GRADE, for rating — and publicly disclosing — the quality of evidence behind the advice it issued. GRADE also permits strong recommendations with weak evidence in certain circumstances, such as when the proposed treatment could be life-saving and the side-effect risk is minimal."


I'd add this: or; on the other hand, when our biggest donors want us to discourage smokers from switching to life-saving, minimal risk alternatives such as electronic cigarettes.

 

[DC2]

moneypower

That's a good new word.

 

[DrMA]

For those who think tinfoil hats weren't needed:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...-an-interview-with-Professor-Peter-Hajek.aspx

 

[DrMA]

More evidence of the WHO-Pharma corruption
The World Health Organisation, the drugs company and the $10,000 funding offer | Society | The Guardian

 

[DC2]

More evidence of the WHO-Pharma corruption
The World Health Organisation, the drugs company and the $10,000 funding offer | Society | The Guardian

More evidence of the WHO-Pharma corruption
The World Health Organisation, the drugs company and the $10,000 funding offer | Society | The Guardian

I'm still not clear on what kind of sane person who is paying any sort of attention still does not understand this...

 

[WattWick]

Heh! Gro Harlem

She's also done a great job 'protecting Africa' from cloned HIV/AIDS-drugs.