# 4244
Admittedly, I have little patience with most conspiracy theories.
It isn’t that I don’t believe that conspiracies occur. I’m certain they do. Every day in fact. But most are petty little back room deals, political favors or maneuverings, or wink-and-a-nod business arrangements.
Very rarely do they rise to the level of political intrigue or military coups . . . and I suspect even less often do they rise to the villainous level of world domination plots such as you’d find in a James Bond novel.
And even should such grand conspiracies exist, I seriously doubt that some Youtube whistle blower, who wants to sell you a subscription to their monthly newsletter or get you to buy their homeopathic flu formula, has figured out the nefarious details.
Sorry. I believe in keeping an open mind. But not so open my brains fall out.
Up until now, most of the conspiracy charges surrounding this pandemic have come from the Internet Fringe. But now, more mainstream accusers are beginning to come forward, alleging that the WHO overhyped the pandemic threat to benefit Big Pharma.
Some, no doubt, see political opportunity here. Others may actually believe that some grand cabal exists between the WHO and big Pharma.
Personally, I don’t buy it.
It stretches credulity that the WHO could believe they could get away with that kind of grand scheme. The downsides . . in terms of loss of credibility . . . are simply too high to make it worth it.
No matter what the payoff.
The WHO, under pressure from a variety of sources who apparently smell blood in the water, has promised a review of their actions.
First a report from CTV, then a little more discussion.
WHO to review its handling of H1N1 flu pandemic
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Tuesday Jan. 12, 2010 11:14 AM ET
The World Health Organization is going to look into how it handled the H1N1 pandemic, the group said Tuesday, amid accusations it exaggerated the dangers of the virus.
WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib told a news briefing Tuesday that the United Nations health agency would conduct the review after the pandemic has subsided.
She said the review would involve independent outside experts and the results would be made public.
"Criticism is part of an outbreak cycle. We expect and indeed welcome criticism and the chance to discuss it," she said.
"Evaluation is necessary and we are open to recommendations that can improve our work, when this is over WHO will undoubtedly work with outside experts."
But another WHO spokesperson said that it would take "several seasons" to determine that the pandemic was over, thus allowing the review to begin.
"We can't say a pandemic is over until we have seen that it hasn't come back," flu spokeswoman Nyka Alexander explained.
When the review does get underway, it will also look at whether pressure from pharmaceutical companies influenced the WHO's take on the virus.
One of the subjects I’ve written about several times over the summer is that no matter how good a job the CDC, the HHS, and the WHO do with this pandemic, they were going to be criticized.
They are in a no-win situation.
That’s something I wrote about in July in an essay called Hubris And The Flu, and before that in early May with Before We Ride Down And Shoot The Survivors.
It isn’t fair of course. But that’s the way it is. When you take on the job, you automatically get a target on your back.
Which is one of the reasons I try to temper my criticisms of these agencies. I’m at least partially aware of how difficult the task before them really is.
Critics, who have the ultimate luxury of not having any responsibility for the lives and health of others should they guess wrong, can easily second guess health officials. They can be wrong, and no one will care or remember.
Public officials, who had to decide last April whether H1N1 constituted a threat and whether to mass produce a vaccine, were working with a dearth of knowledge and a ticking clock.
Delaying a decision until more was known about the virulence of this virus could have cost thousands of lives.
There were, no doubt, plenty of missteps over the past 8 months made by the WHO and by other public health agencies. No agency’s response is perfect. But I don’t believe there was any grand conspiracy at work here.
A reasonable review of their actions is not only warranted and prudent, we can hopefully learn valuable lessons from it.
But a witch hunt serves no one.
Except the hunters, of course.
