Today's Guardian
WHO accused of losing public confidence over flu pandemic
Loss of credibility could endanger lives, says vice chair of Council of Europe's health committee
Countries across Europe reacted very differently to the pandemic, and not all mounted high-profile vaccination campaigns, as did the UK. Photograph: Dave Thompson/PA
The World Health Organisation and other public health bodies have "gambled away" public confidence by overstating the dangers of the flupandemic, according to a draft report to the Council of Europe.
The report, by the Labour MP Paul Flynn, vice chair of the council's health committee, says that a loss of credibility could endanger lives.
"This decline in confidence could be risky in the future," says the report, seen by the Guardian. "When the next pandemic arises many persons may not give full credibility to recommendations put forward by WHO and other bodies. They may refuse to be vaccinated and may put their own health and lives at risk."
In Britain, says Flynn, the discrepancy between the estimate of the numbers of people who would die from flu and the reality was dramatic. "In the United Kingdom, the Department of Health initially announced that around 65,000 deaths were to be expected. In the meantime, by the start of 2010, this estimate was downgraded to only 1,000 fatalities. By January 2010, fewer than 5,000 persons had been registered as having caught the disease and about 360 deaths had been noted," says his report.
The public health minister, Gillian Merron, told Flynn in a meeting for the report that a Cabinet Office investigation was looking into Britain's handling of the outbreak and would report some time after June. Countries across Europe reacted very differently to the pandemic, says the report. Not all mounted high-profile vaccination campaigns, as did the UK.
Flynn's draft accuses the WHO of a lack of transparency. Some members of its advisory groups are flu experts who have also received funding, especially for research projects, from pharmaceutical companies making drugs and vaccines against flu.
"The neutrality of their advice could be contested," says the report. "To date, WHO has failed to provide convincing evidence to counter these allegations and the organisation has not published the relevant declarations of interest. Taking such a reserved position, the organisation has joined other bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency, which likewise, have still not published such documents."
Flynn's report was commissioned by the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, which is holding an inquiry into the handling by European bodies and governments of the flu pandemic. The second evidence session will be held in Paris tomorrow. The witnesses will include the Polish health minister, Ewa Kopacz, who will explain why her government decided not to order any H1N1 vaccines.
At the first evidence session, in January, some experts criticised the dramatic comparisons made last year between the novel strain of H1N1 circulating in Europe and the devastating Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. Professor Ulrich Keil, epidemiologist and director of the WHO collaborating centre on epidemiology of the University of Münster in Germany pointed out in evidence that the Spanish flu broke out in the very different circumstances of the first world war, where infections were easily transmitted by undernourished soldiers and there was an absence of medicines such as penicillin.
One of the central questions of the Council of Europe inquiry, says Flynn, "concerns the possibility for representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to directly influence public decisions taken with regard to the H1N1 influenza, and the question of whether some of their statements had been adopted as public health recommendations without being based on sufficient scientific evidence". He cites as an example the decision to recommend two doses of flu vaccine for children, which was later questioned.
"Various factors have led to the suspicion that there may have been undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry, notably the possibility of conflicts of interest of experts represented in WHO advisory groups, the early stage of preparing contractual arrangements between member states and pharmaceutical companies as well as the actual profits that companies were able to realise as a result of the influenza pandemic," says the draft report, which will be finalised when all the evidence has been taken, at the end of April.
Cynical, Moi?
I'm grateful for Spinwatch for resurrecting a question I asked Richard Caborn and his shocked answer. This is the same Richard Caborn who appeared to be offering to sell himself to the highest bidder n the Dispatches Sting. It was not always like that.
Spinwatch writes:
"When questioned by the MPs on the Committee about his work for Amec, Caborn denied it had anything to do with lobbying: "It is not about lobbying at all" he said; "it is about the fact that I am an engineer and I have had a lot of experience in Europe and have been a trade union official... I am not in the game of lobbying government in that sense; I am there to advise on the skills I had before I became a minister."
His responses were met with a healthy dose of skepticism from a number of the Committee's members. A prophetic Paul Flynn even ventured: "Someone in your constituency might cynically suggest that what you are doing as a retiring MP with a short time to go and expectations of going to the Lords is feathering your nest in order to get a comfortable job after you stand down as an MP?"
To which Caborn replied: "If they want to make that judgment they will do so. They might be as cynical as you, Mr Flynn."
How time has changed him. The saintly Caborn now has other ambitions. The Sunday Times reports that Caborn talked about a number of services he could offer the fictitious lobbying firm (at a daily rate of £2,500 “plus expenses”). He said he would be willing to build relations with ministers who were “good friends”. He was also happy to approach senior Conservatives if they came to power.
Caborn was also taped claiming that he may be in line for a peerage, which would boost his chances of extracting valuable information from the corridors of Westminster. Asked how he could help the firm if he were in the Lords, Caborn replied: “Well, access. Access to people ... You are in the environment, you’re moving around.” This included access to ministers.
He later elaborated on the advantages of the Lords: “All this is all about contacts, it really is. It’s not so much always about influencing, it’s about getting information, and that’s absolutely key because if you can get information that is very powerful.”
Caborn continued: "If a client was a “big hitter”, he said, it could gain access to the highest levels of government. This was true of Amec’s chief executive, Samir Brikho. “If Samir Brikho wants to see the prime minister, Samir Brikho sees the prime minister,” said Caborn. Asked whether this was something he helped to arrange, he said it was.
This sort of behaviour is likely to give shameless greed a bad name.
Opportunism beckons.
It's pass the sick bucket time.
Another failed politician seeks solace in the Welsh Tory Party. John Marek was the most numbingly boring MP of his generation. He could empty the Chamber in seconds. He once spoke for 45 minutes and was interrupted by Alan Beith, who said, ' I have been listening to the Hon Gentleman for three-quarters of an hour and I still do not know whether he is for or against this measure.' John sighed heavily, 'I'm coming to that,' he promised. Sadly the sigh was the only part of his speech broadcast to the nation on Today in Parliament.
He stood for the Welsh Assembly in the hope of being a minister. It did not happen. He then became what was known as the 'John Marek Party'. He was deselected by Labour and he stood as an Independent, Then, I believe he flirted with the short lived Ron Davies Party. Was it Forward Wales? There was certainly no forward motion just a drop into oblivion. Then he lost his seat to Labour. There is almost nowhere else to go. Except the Tories. They'll take anyone. They welcome Mohammed Ashgar after Labour declined to make him a councillor and Plaid Cymru would not let him employ a second relative on his staff.
Now we are asked to believe John Marek is a Tory. He found NewLabour too right wing for him. It's rather like hearing of someone discovering that they are gay at the age of 69 after a long married life fathering six kids. Some things are just not plausible, John
Talk of principles on this move incites mockery. No mention that the Tories are topping the opinion polls. Talk of envy, vengeance, spite, retribution, malice, desperation, attention seeking and insincerity strike an authentic note. This is your foulest hour, John. Why didn't you become a Scientoligist or a Moonie? We would have understood that. But a Tory? Forget it, John.
That's all very well, but is SpinWatch a reliable source? The site has a conspiratorial preoccupation with the influence of Jews in public life http://spinwatchwatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/a-keen-interest-in-the-jews/
and it is funded by a wealth Lebanese businessman who also has something of a fixation on Jews http://spinwatchwatch.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/agri-business-fortune-behind-spinwatch/
Posted by: Will Deighton | May 28, 2010 at 10:13 PM