44 C
Monday, May 20, 2024

The Re-Election Game of Dr Tedros to WHO: Question China, Act Nonpartisan!


Share post:


The statement, ‘there has been a premature push to rule out virus might have escaped from Chinese government lab in Wuhan’ by Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus yesterday at the global media briefing from Geneva stumped me and got me thinking.

He further added that investigating the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic in China was being hampered by the lack of raw data on the first days of the spread there and urged it to be transparent. “We ask China to be transparent and open and to cooperate. We owe it to the millions who suffered and the millions who died to know what happened.”

For a moment, I allowed myself to believe that the Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) probably developed a conscience after finally coming to terms with millions of lives lost and billions of people suffering on account of his and his office’s dereliction of duty and because of pandering to China’s coverup of its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. But Dr. Tedros is not a health practitioner, he is a politician. And it is rare in the world to find a politician with a conscience. So there is more than what meets the eye behind his statement.

I remember, on April 6, 2020, I had questioned Dr. Tedros in a one-question interview during the global media briefing in Geneva. My question was:

“On January 14th, 2020 W.H.O stated ‘Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.’ As an independent global health organization why did WHO have to rely on China’s preliminary investigations into the human-to-human transmission possibility of the coronavirus and not conduct one of its own investigations?”

To which Dr. Tedros replied:

The rule we have in WHO and other UN agencies is when a member state reports we post the member state report as is. What we did on January 14th on Twitter is we posted China’s report as is. That doesn’t mean that we agree or we disagree; we’re just reporting what came. If India reports we post India’s report as is. If my own country, Ethiopia, reports we post the report that came from Ethiopia as is and we treat the same way all 194 member states. 

But when we post their reports on our Twitter or website or wherever we just put it as-is and we don’t change anything. But at the same time, if we have some differences with what is reported, we can say it. Before January 13th Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove and other colleagues were saying, there is a likelihood of human-to-human transmission. Even on January 14th Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove and other colleagues were briefing journalists and they said, there is a likelihood of human-to-human transmission. Our guidance reflected all that.

When China officially reported that it discovered human-to-human transmission on January 22nd we just reported again exactly as we received it from China. That’s a normal procedure and we do it for any country but that doesn’t mean that we accept or not and we express our own opinion. The most important thing is our guidance before, during 14th, and after actually included the likelihood of human-to-human transmission. That helped countries to prepare.”

On April 23, 2020, I had an opportunity to participate in a one-question interview with Dr. Tedros. I asked him:

“If Dr. Tedros had an opportunity to rewind back the last couple of weeks when we’ve been going through the coronavirus pandemic and certain decisions that were taken by the World Health Organization would he have called the coronavirus a pandemic earlier? That is my question. If he had the opportunity to rewind and go back would WHO have called the pandemic earlier than it did, much later?”

Dr. Tedros replied:

Yes, thank you. I would like to add to that. I think my colleagues have already said; based on the IHR 2005 what is expected from WHO is declaring the Public Health Emergency of International Concern as early as possible based on the factors and as Mike said, the highest emergency as far as International Health Regulations is concerned was declared on January 30th. 

During that time, as Maria said, there were fewer than 100 cases and to be specific 82 confirmed cases on January 30th. 

Outside China. Of course, in China, we had more cases but outside China, we had only 82 cases and most of these cases were actually in the neighborhood and most of them – since they’re in the neighborhood – the rest of the world was still reporting no cases. We had few in Europe and I can read that for you, what was reported from Europe; we had five from France, one from Finland, four from Germany; that makes nine – ten actually, ten cases in Europe when we declared a Global Emergency. 

In Africa, we didn’t have any cases. From the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates had four cases so you can see it for yourself. We triggered the highest level of emergency when the rest of the world had only 82 cases and no deaths. 

Then to add to that, a Global Emergency is discussed among experts, it’s not just one Director-General who just comes out and declares. We have experts representing all over the whole world coming together as experts and discussing and they met on 23rd January. They couldn’t agree; they were divided. 

Then of course they continued for a second day but still, they couldn’t agree. Of course, they agreed to meet in six, seven days and then met for a second time on January 30th, when, based on the criteria we have, they were convinced that the criteria were met to declare this a Global Emergency. 

So I want to be clear again; the most important thing which is expected as a declaration from WHO is the Global Emergency declaration on January 30th and that was declared based on expert opinion that was drawn from all over the world, from experts who used the criteria to recommend to me that this was already a global emergency and that consensus led to a declaration of Global Emergency from WHO, which I announced myself. 

So looking back I think we declared the Emergency at the right time and when the world had enough time to respond when the rest of the world had enough time to respond. I repeat again, there were only 82 cases and no deaths. That was enough to cut it at the bud, enough. That was January 30th and this was more than two months and 21 days ago, close to three months now. 

I remember the visit of Dr. Tedros to China and his pro-China statements which was a consequence of his meeting with the President of China Xi Jinping on January 28, 2020. He said:

It (China) has already done incredible things to limit the transmission of the virus to other countries. And where respect is due, then you don’t punish. Meaning if anyone is thinking about taking measures, it’s going to be wrong. And WHO doesn’t recommend, and actually opposes, any restrictions for travel and trade or other measures against China.

I think visiting China was a very important one, which is not a new one. Of course, I did it many times to other countries where there were outbreaks and so on. This one was special because I was able to learn many things from what China is doing. And I’m very confident by what they’re doing. I have seen the capacity, and I believe that they will control this outbreak as soon as possible. They have all the capacity that needs.

But not only what they’re doing is protecting their people, but I know from the figures also, you know that it’s protecting the rest of the world. Outside China, we only have 98 cases and no deaths. If strong measures were not taken in China this would not have happened. And that’s why I also said we have to appreciate what China is doing. And this declaration is not actually because China is not doing what it can. It’s actually doing more than China is required to do. 

On September 27, 2020, Dr. Tedros when questioned that the COVID-19 pandemic came from China at the global media briefing, stated:

The virus has happened naturally. These are all the publications we know, and if there is anything that will change this, it should come through the proper scientific process.

Early last year, when Dr. Tedros was repeatedly question on his closeness on China by many in the media. He once stated:

I cannot say they hid or they didn’t. If something is hidden, the world would have witnessed more cases spilling outside its border, given how connected China is to the rest of the world. But the number of cases is very small. Even if China hides it, I don’t think the cases would be prevented from crossing the borders to other countries. So it really defeats the logic.

Interestingly, Dr. Tedros’s change of views contradict the WHO Investigation panel that conducted the first study into the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China. They opined:

Introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway.

So when Dr. Tedros now does a volte-face on China. I am inclined to believe that this is a new game of the top chief of the WHO.

Rising questions over the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, research papers by global scientists indicating to the possibility of a lab-leak at the Wuhan Virology Lab but most of all the election of the new Director-General of WHO could be the reasons behind this change of Dr. Tedros in his statements on China.

Dr. Tedros wants to be re-elected to the post of Director-General of the WHO. With most Member States questioning the dereliction of duty of the WHO under Dr. Tedros. There reportedly is a sense of unsurity in the Dr. Tedros camp on whether he would be re-elected. China lobbied hard for Dr. Tedros for his first tenure.

This time, Dr. Tedros would need more than China’s lobbying, especially with the US having trained its gun on China with a focus to pin the blame on the COVID-19 pandemic on China.

The US also wants to cover up its own footprints over the continuation of the controversial gain-of-function research experiments at Wuhan Virology Lab. For which funds granted to Dr. Shi Zhengli came from the US government through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Dr Anthony Fauci.

Dr. Tedros needs more countries to back him and he cannot rely on China alone. He is not distancing himself from China but spinning to a subtle cover stating in his statement yesterday:

I was a lab technician myself, I’m an immunologist, and I have worked in the lab, and lab accidents happen. It’s common.

The attempt now is to push the spin that if indeed a lab-leak theory gains global traction and evidence emerge, then it must be portrayed as accidental. Thereby absolving China of the questions over a bio-weapon and attributing the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic to a accidental lab-leak.

Yesterday’s statements of Dr. Tedros are not misleading at all and neither is it a change of heart. It is “The Re-Election Game of Dr Tedros: Question China, Act Nonpartisan!”


Related articles

21.11 pc polling in first four hours in Bihar

Patna: An estimated 21.11 percent of more than 95.11 lakh electorate exercised their franchise till 11 AM in...

China sweeps men’s 400m T54 medals at Para Athletics World Championships

Kobe, Japan: China impressed the Universiade Memorial Stadium in Kobe with a clean sweep of all three medals...

Hope people of Baramulla come out to vote: Omar Abdullah

Srinagar: National Conference Vice President Omar Abdullah on Monday expressed hope that people of Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency...

Voters queue up as polling gets underway in J&K’s Baramulla LS seat

Baramulla: Once known for boycotting the elections, several such voters in Jammu and Kashmir's Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency...