Check out the FAQ,Terms of Service & Disclaimers by clicking the
link. Please register
to be able to post. By viewing this site you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Acknowledge our Disclaimers.
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New president signs executive order to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization - January 20, 2025, formal withdrawal January 22, 2026
... Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun’s Regular Press Conference on January 26, 2026
Updated: January 26, 2026 18:54
... Shenzhen TV: On January 23, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced in a joint statement the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). The Department of Health and Human Services said that during the early stages of COVID-19, China underreported and refused to provide to WHO genetic sequences from individuals infected early in the pandemic. What’s China’s comment?
Guo Jiakun: After the outbreak of COVID-19, China has put people and their lives front and center, worked with other countries to fight the pandemic together, and made important contributions to international cooperation against COVID-19. China’s record of COVID-19 response has a clear timeline and solid data. It’s widely recognized by the international community and brooks no distortion or smearing. China firmly opposes politicizing the virus. To use COVID-19 as a pretext for political manipulation and shift blame to China will find no support and will not succeed.
WHO is the authoritative and professional international agency on global public health. We noted that WHO regrets the U.S.’s notification of withdrawal. Multilateralism is the cornerstone of the current international order and is the prevailing trend and what the people want. China has all along supported WHO in fulfilling its duty, deepened international cooperation on public health, strengthened global governance on public health, and promoted the building of a global community of health for all.
...
Joint Statement by Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kennedy on the Termination of U.S. Membership in the World Health Organization (WHO)
...
Even on our way out of the organization, the WHO tarnished and trashed everything that America has done for it. The WHO refuses to hand over the American flag that**** in front of it, arguing it has not approved our withdrawal and, in fact, claims that we owe it compensation. From our days as its primary founder, primary financial backer, and primary champion until now, our final day, the insults to America continue.
... https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/joint...ation-who.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12:55 PM · Jan 26, 2026
I find the above picture heartwarming and very sad at the same time.
FluTrackers has always "supported" WHO and the related offices. Overall these entities have been a lifesaver to poorer nations. They have done so many great things that it is hard to mention all but for a few: investigations, clinics, vaccine distributions, on the ground assistance in outbreaks.... the list is really endless. In addition, we have always had a good "working" relationship with WHO and their personnel over the years starting when Gregory Hartl let me interview him a few times on live radio! link Imagine...live radio. FluTrackers has always been very respectful and we do not play stupid games..
But, the WHO response was delayed in the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no other way to describe it. Maybe it was procedures that required certain protocols to be followed?
It was very clear to pandemic observers that COVID-19 had "the triad" of pandemic potential in the first couple of weeks:
1. Contagious via droplets, and/or airborne,
2. Exponential case growth,
3. Infected healthcare workers.
WHO did not declare a pandemic until March 11, 2020 after there were "118,000 (known) cases in 114 countries, and 4,291 people have lost their lives" link (The link to the actual page on the WHO site appears to be broken so I have linked our copy of the declaration. h/t Pathfinder)
Nevertheless, I would like to thank all of the WHO representatives who have dedicated their lives to public health. Hopefully a compromise will be made someday.
I think all US citizens would like the US to contribute personnel and financial support for a global health effort.
Last edited by sharon sanders; January 28, 2026, 01:18 PM.
Reason: typo in top line to add word "time"
------------------------------------------------------------ WHO’s departing chief scientist regrets errors in debate over whether SARS-CoV-2 spreads through air
Soumya Swaminathan says the agency should have acknowledged aerosol transmission “much earlier” but is proud of work on vaccine equity
23 Nov 2022 2:45 PM ET By Kai Kupferschmidt
...
ScienceInsider caught up with Swaminathan to talk about her time at WHO, her plans for the future, and the advice she would give to her successor. Questions and answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
... Q: Was that your biggest mistake as chief scientist—not calling SARS-CoV-2 airborne?
A: We should have done it much earlier, based on the available evidence, and it is something that has cost the organization. You can argue that [the criticism of WHO] is unfair, because when it comes to mitigation, we did talk about all the methods, including ventilation and masking. But at the same time, we were not forcefully saying: “This is an airborne virus.” I regret that we didn't do this much, much earlier.
Q: Why didn’t you? What went wrong?
A: I think it's a mixture of things. I was very new in the role of chief scientist, and it had not been defined; what does the chief scientist do during a pandemic? I tried to do what I thought was best. What happens at WHO is that the technical departments do the guidelines, at the science division we just set the norms of how to do guidelines. So it was not my role and neither did anyone ask me to get involved at that stage. … The existing paradigm is based around flu, because most of our pandemic preparedness is flu. And similarly, SARS-1 was very different as a pathogen, so we couldn't fully extrapolate from that. But in the beginning, we had to base it on some things. So, I think what I would say to the next chief scientist: If there's any situation where there's new evidence emerging, particularly from other disciplines, that’s challenging our understanding, get involved early on!
...
This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions.
Practically speaking, the United States is unlikely to be involved in future WHO activities—a point recently emphasized in a bombastic joint statement by the U.S. Secretaries of State and Health and Human Service. Disengagement by a member state that even these officials recognize as the WHO’s “primary founder, primary financial backer, and primary champion” is major setback for multilateral efforts to improve the health of the world’s populations.
Yet it is also important to consider the international law implications of these events. The United States is not the first WHO member to fall behind on its financial contributions. Over several decades, the organization has developed a consistent practice to pressure these countries to pay up. If a member’s arrears equal or exceed the amount due for the preceding two full years, the World Health Assembly or the Executive Board can suspend that state’s voting privileges. Suspended countries are encouraged to negotiate a “special arrangement” with the WHO Director-General—essentially, a repayment plan—to provide at least a portion of the dues owed and to have their voting rights restored. Suspensions in recent years have included Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Yemen.
The purported withdrawal of seven Soviet-bloc nations in the late 1940s and early 1950s (and later several other states) is also relevant. Most of these states declared that they no longer considered themselves as WHO members; a few claimed a legal right to withdraw. However, because the WHO Constitution lacks a general withdrawal clause, the organization treated these states as “inactive members.” When the countries sought to resume active participation a few years later, the World Health Assembly allowed them to submit a fraction of their unpaid dues without the need for a formal re-accession process.
These two lines of practice may be discussed as the WHO Executive Board and World Health Assembly decide the membership status of the United States. In particular, we expect these bodies to reach two conclusions. First, that as a matter of international law the United States remains a state party to the WHO Constitution so long as its financial obligations for the current fiscal year (likely 2025) are unpaid. Second, that the United States is an inactive member given its nonpayment. This second determination, which might be made at a later date, would mean that the United States will be unable to vote on any WHO initiatives and will lack meaningful voice within the organization.
Since the United States remains a party to the WHO Constitution, we do not consider the legality of the purported withdrawal as a matter of U.S. domestic law—although we note that it is questionable. Nor do we explore what steps under international or domestic law would be necessary for the United States to rejoin if the WHO later recognizes the country as having formally exited.
...
In the search for truth we always try to post all sides. Here is a response from WHO to post #35. X does not allow copy/paste of photos etc. Please see original at Dr. Kerkhove's X link below:
1/ Six years ago today, @WHO declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)- the highest level of alarm under international health law at the time This pandemic has changed global health forever. 12:46 PM · Jan 30, 2026
· Jan 30
2/ Some still say @WHO was “too slow” to declare a PHEIC. Much of this rhetoric reflects hindsight bias and politicization. Decisions were made with the information available at the time as events unfolded — Context is important. From who.intMaria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
3/ A few impt dates for context:
31 Dec 19: @WHO picks up the signal from Wuhan
1 Jan 20: WHO asks China for more info and sets up an Incident Management Support Team
2 Jan: WHO notifies #GOARN partners of the situation
3 Jan: China provides info to WHO on the cluster Maria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
4 Jan:@WHO provides info on social media
5 Jan: WHO formally notifies countries (EIS & DON)
9-12 Jan: WHO publishes comprehensive technical guidance
13 Jan: Thailand reports first case
14 Jan: Detailed update from WHO @ UN press conference unognewsroom.org UNOG Bi-weekly press briefing 14 January 2020 - audio.mp3 Alessandra Vellucci, Director of the United Nations Information Service in Geneva, chaired the briefing, which was attended by the spokespersons for the United Nations Conference on Trade and...Maria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
15 Jan: Second case reported outside China
20 Jan: @WHODG @DrTedros announces he is convening an Emergency Committee (EC) under IHR. There are three reported cases outside China.
22-23 Jan: WHO EC meets and is divided as to whether situation represents a PHEIC Maria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
26 Jan: Senior WHO delegation led by @DrTedros travels to China to learn first hand about the outbreak & meet senior Chinese leaders
29 Jan: DG announces he is reconvening EC
30 Jan: DG declares a PHEIC. There are fewer than 100 reported cases outside of China, no deaths Maria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
4/@WHO
takes criticism seriously & makes changes. Multiple independent reviews have guided reforms, incl a strengthened IHR and a new level of alert: “pandemic emergency,” and the adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement Systems evolve because we learn From who.intMaria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
5/ Six years on, #COVID19 has not gone away. SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate globally, evolve, reinfect, and cause severe disease & #LongCOVID. We all still feel the broader impacts of these 6 years. @nextstrain https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 9 othersMaria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
6/ Over time, my messages have evolved as the situation changed: • 2020–21 was about emergency response- all hands on deck • 2022–23: transition & warnings • 2024–25: vigilance & preparedness My message for 2026 is simple: do not become complacent to the threats we face.
Maria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
· Jan 30
7/ Early on in the pandemic, we saw how fast a novel virus can spread—but also how powerful science, collaboration, and data sharing can be when aligned. At the same time, inequities slowed progress and cost lives. Ending the emergency in 2023 did not mean the end of the threat.
Jan 30
2/ Some still say @WHO was “too slow” to declare a PHEIC. Much of this rhetoric reflects hindsight bias and politicization. Decisions were made with the information available at the time as events unfolded — Context is important. From who.intMaria Van Kerkhove @mvankerkhove
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.H.O. announces panelists to join the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response - September 3, 2020
September 4, 2020, 06:40 PM
Panelists Named to Join the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response
... The Co-Chairs were appointed by the WHO Director-General to lead an impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation of the international health response to COVID-19 coordinated by WHO, in accordance with the request in a resolution at the 73rd World Health Assembly.
...
The Panel is expected to submit their report to the 74th World Health Assembly in May 2021.
...
W.H.O. announces panelists to join the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response - September 3, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Report & accompanying work
...
On May 12 2021, the Independent Panel presented its findings and recommendations for action to curb the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure that any future infectious disease outbreak does not become another catastrophic pandemic.
This was the culmination of eight months of work. Beginning in September 2020, the Independent Panel systematically, rigorously and comprehensively examined why COVID-19 became a global health and socio-economic crisis.
The result included the main report, together with fifteen background papers including the Panel’s authoritative chronology, a narrative report, a report reflecting the voices heard in townhall meetings, and multimedia materials.
... Main Report
1. The main report presents the Panel’s findings and recommendations.
This page contains the documents published in May 2021 when the Panel's main report, entitled COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic, was released. These include the main report, a summary, an evidence-based narrative report, background documents, a report reflecting voices heard in townhall meetings, and multimedia materials including videos. Also included on this page is a sample of global public…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt from the main report (page 24+):
... 4.2.2 The declaration of a public health emergency of international concern
A Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is the loudest alarm that can be sounded by the WHO Director-General. The IHR (2005) mandate that in determining whether an event constitutes a PHEIC, the WHO Director-General consider the advice of an Emergency Committee convened for the purpose and drawn from a roster of experts maintained by WHO. The affected State is invited to present its views to the Emergency Committee. If a PHEIC is recommended, the WHO Director-General has the final authority to make a declaration, taking all information into account. The meeting of the WHO IHR Emergency Committee called to discuss the outbreak on 22–23 January was split on whether to recommend that the outbreak be declared a PHEIC. The Committee met again the following week when the Director-General returned from a mission to China. Following the Committee’s recommendation, the WHO Director-General declared that the outbreak constituted a PHEIC on 30 January. At that time there were 98 cases in 18 countries outside China(33, 34). In the statement from the Emergency Committee reported by the Director-General, it was specified that no travel restrictions were recommended, based on the information available. Reference to the PHEIC outbreak was included in the 3 February 2020 report by the WHO Director-General to the WHO Executive Board(35). On 4 February in an oral briefing to Member States he reported that there had been 20 471 confirmed cases and 425 deaths reported in China, and a total of 176 cases in 24 other countries. The IHR (2005) do not use or define the term “pandemic”. The most extensive use of the term by WHO is in relation to the detailed framework and guidelines for pandemic influenza, although even there the distinction between seasonal and pandemic influenza is not clear-cut (36). As COVID-19 spread during February 2020, and there was an apparent lack of understanding that declaring a PHEIC was to sound the loudest possible alarm, there was an increasing clamour for WHO to describe the situation as a pandemic. Eventually, stating that it was alarmed by the extent of both the spread of the disease and the level of inaction in response, WHO went on to characterize COVID-19 as a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, when there were a reported 118 000 cases in 114 countries (37). The Panel has considered this sequence of events between December 2019 and the declaration of a PHEIC on 30 January 2020 in detail in order to assess what could potentially have been done differently and whether changes are needed in the international system of alert.
The IHR (2005) are designed to ensure that countries have the capacity to detect and notify health events. They require that, when disease or deaths above expected levels are detected, essential information is reported immediately to subnational or national levels. If urgent events, defined as having “serious public health impact and/or unusual or unexpected nature with high potential for spread” are detected, they must be reported immediately to the national level and assessed within 48 hours. Events assessed to warrant a potential PHEIC must be reported to WHO within 24 hours of assessment, via the IHR national focal point. Events with PHEIC potential must meet at least two of four conditions, namely: (1) have serious public health impact; (2) be an unusual or unexpected event; (3) have significant risk of international spread; and (4) carry significant risk of travel or trade restrictions.(a) The Panel’s view is that the outbreak in Wuhan is likely to have met the criteria to be declared a PHEIC by the time of the first meeting of the Emergency Committee on 22 January 2020. While WHO was rapid and assiduous in its early dissemination of the outbreak alert to countries around the world, its approach in presenting the nature and level of risk was based on its established principles guided by the International Health Regulations of issuing advice on the balance of existing evidence. While WHO advised of the possibility of human-to-human transmission in the period until it was confirmed, and recommended measures that health workers should take to prevent infection, the Panel’s view is that it could also have told countries that they should take the precaution of assuming that human-to-human transmission was occurring. Given what is known about respiratory infections, there is a case for applying the precautionary principle and assuming that in any outbreak caused by a new pathogen of this type, sustained humanto-human transmission will occur unless the evidence specifically indicates otherwise. The Panel’s conclusion is that the alert system does not operate with sufficient speed when faced with a fast-moving respiratory pathogen, that the legally binding IHR (2005) are a conservative instrument as currently constructed and serve to constrain rather than facilitate rapid action and that the precautionary principle was not applied to the early alert evidence when it should have been. The Panel’s view is that the definition of a new suspected outbreak with pandemic potential needs to be refined, as different classes of pathogen have very different implications for the speed with which they are likely to spread and their implications for the type of response needed.
4.2.3 Two worlds at different speeds
The chronology of the early events in raising the alarm about COVID-19 show two worlds operating at very different speeds. One is the world of fast-paced information and data-sharing. Open digital platforms for epidemic surveillance, in which WHO plays a leading role, constantly update and share outbreak information. Digital tools are now core elements in disease surveillance and alert, sifting through vast quantities of instantly available information. Epidemic surveillance operates symbiotically with information exchange—the constant pace of news, gossip and rumour that characterize social media and can be mined for epidemic-relevant signals. Open data on the information and collaboration platforms central to scientific exchange also, by their nature, enable near-instant global availability of information. The other world is that of the slow and deliberate pace with which information is treated under the IHR (2005), with their step-by-step confidentiality and verification requirements and threshold criteria for the declaration of a PHEIC, with greater emphasis on action that should not be taken, rather than on action that should. The critical issue for this two-speed world is that viruses, especially highly transmissible respiratory pathogens, operate at the faster pace, not the slower one. The Panel’s conclusion is that surveillance and alert systems at national, regional and global levels must be redesigned, bringing together their detection functions—picking up signals of potential outbreaks—and their relay functions—ensuring that signals are verified and acted upon. Both must be able to function at near instantaneous speed. This will require the consistent application of digital tools, including the incorporation of machine learning, together with fast-paced verification and audit functions. It will also require a commitment to open data principles as the foundation of a system that can adapt and correct itself.
...
Tweet
Comment