세계보건기구 사무총장이 BMJ(영국의학저널) 편집장에게 보낸 서한입니다. BMJ는 신종플루 대유행과 관련하여 WHO의 이해상충에 관한 심층보도를 한 바 있습니다.
마거릿 찬 WHO 사무총장은 자신의 2009년 인플루엔자 대유행 6단계 선언에 대한 비판을 변호하고 해명하고 있지만… 왠지 구차한 변명으로 들립니다.
WHO Director-General’s letter to BMJ editors
출처 : WHO Statement 8 June 2010
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2010/letter_bmj_20100608/en/index.html
Below you will find a copy of the letter Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) sent to the editors of the BMJ, formerly British Medical Journal, in reference to their article on conflicts of interest at the WHO.
To the Editors,
In the editorial accompanying the feature on conflicts of interest at WHO, the author notes that it is “almost certainly true” that the mildness of the H1N1 pandemic, compared with the severity long expected from a virus like H5N1, has contributed to the current critical scrutiny of WHO’s decisions. As the editorial further states, this reality does not make it wrong to ask hard questions.
We fully agree. Good investigative journalism brings problems, and their potential consequences, into sharp focus and identifies the need for remedial action. Potential conflicts of interest are inherent in any relationship between a normative and health development agency, like WHO, and profit-driven industry. WHO needs to establish, and enforce, stricter rules of engagement with industry, and we are doing so. However, let me be perfectly clear on one point. At no time, not for one second, did commercial interests enter my decision-making.
I take issue with the assumption that WHO simply dismisses these hard questions as unfounded. In January 2010, I suggested that a review committee, an independent mechanism under the International Health Regulations, be used to evaluate WHO’s performance during the influenza pandemic. This recommendation was accepted by members of the WHO Executive Board, and the Review Committee’s work began on 12 April 2010. The Committee agreed to address criticism currently being levelled at WHO as part of its evaluation. I have publicly expressed my desire to see a critical, independent, and transparent assessment of WHO’s performance.
The implication that WHO provoked unjustified fear also needs to be addressed. The record is otherwise, and not a matter of interpretation. On 11 June 2009, when I announced the start of the pandemic, I drew attention to the fact that the worldwide number of deaths was small, and clearly stated that we did not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections. In every assessment of the pandemic, WHO consistently reminded the public that the overwhelming majority of patients experienced mild symptoms and made a rapid and full recovery, even without medical treatment.
Concerning the members of the Emergency Committee that advised WHO on the pandemic, including phase changes, the names will be released when the Committee finishes its work, as has always been intended. Our decision not to make these names public was motivated by a desire to protect the experts from commercial or other influences. The members themselves welcomed this decision as a protective measure, and not as an attempt to veil their deliberations and decisions in secrecy. Records of all Emergency Committee meetings were kept, and these and all other documents pertaining to WHO’s pandemic decisions and actions have been placed at the disposal of the Review Committee.
Without question, the BMJ feature and editorial will leave many readers with the impression that WHO’s decision to declare a pandemic was at least partially influenced by a desire to boost the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The bottom line, however, is that decisions to raise the level of pandemic alert were based on clearly defined virological and epidemiological criteria. It is hard to bend these criteria, no matter what the motive.
Accusations that WHO changed its definition of a pandemic in order to accommodate a less severe event (and thus benefit industry) are not supported by the facts. The current pandemic preparedness plan, which includes phase definitions, was finalized in February 2009 following two years of consultations. A new strain of H1N1 was neither on the horizon nor mentioned in the document.
A full record and timeline of events leading to the publication of the 2009 plan have been placed at the disposal of the Review Committee. Should this Committee decide that the current definition of a pandemic and the phases leading up to its declaration need to be tightened or otherwise revised, this will be another recommendation that we will welcome, and act on.
Dr Margaret Chan
Director-General
World Health Organization
For further information, please contact:
Christy Feig,
Director of the Department of Communications,
WHO Geneva
Telephone: +41 79 251 70 55
E-mail: feigc@who.int
Gregory Hartl,
Spokesperson for H1N1,
WHO Geneva
Telephone: +41 79 203 6715
E-mail: hartlg@who.int
H1N1 media line:
Telephone: +41 22 791 5000
E-mail: flumedia@who.int
================
WHO 사무총장, ‘신종플루 허위 대유행설’ 강력 부인
“상업적 이해관계를 고려한 적 없다”
뉴스 한국 2010-06-09 11:34:47 [ 황윤경 기자 ]
http://www.newshankuk.com/news/news_view.asp?articleno=t2010060911344719755
- WHO 마가렛 찬 시무총장ⓒ연합뉴스
이날 찬 사무총장은 영국 브리티시 메디컬 저널(BMJ)에 항의서한을 보내고 “의사 결정을 하는 데 있어서 어떤 경우에도, 단 한 순간도 상업적 이해관계를 고려한 적은 없었다”고 주장했다.
반면 BMJ는 최근 비영리조사단체인 언론조사국(BIJ)과 공동으로 실시한 조사에서 지난 2004년 WHO의 신종플루 관련 가이드라인 작성에 참여한 과학자 세 명이 대형 제약업체들로부터 이전에 돈을 받은 적이 있었다는 내용의 보고서를 유럽의회를 통해 지난 4일 발표했다.
보고서는 WHO 가이드라인의 저자인 프레드 하이든, 아널드 몬토, 칼 니컬슨 등은 타미플루 제조사인 로슈와 레렌자 글락소스미스클라인(GSK)으로부터 다른 사안으로도 돈을 건네받은 적이 있으며, 신종플루 대유행을 결정한 WHO의 16인 비상위원회 위원 중에서 지난해 GSK로부터 뇌물을 받았다고 폭로했다.
또한 영국 일간지 선지는 유럽회의 의원총회(PACE)의 볼프강 보다르크(Wolfgang Wodarg) 보건분과위원장이 “신종플루 대유행이 신종플루 백신으로 막대한 이익을 챙기기 위한 제약사들이 주도한 ‘허위 대유행’이며, 이는 금세기 최대의 의학 비리 중 하나”라고 주장했다고 지난1월11일 보도한 바 있다.
이에 대해 찬 사무총장은 “비상위원회에 참여한 전문가들의 개인정보는 상업적 영향으로부터 보호하기 위해 철저한 비밀을 유지하고 있으며, WHO가 신종플루 대유행때 치사율이 낮다는 점을 분명히 밝혀 과장된 공포조성은 없었다”고 반박했다.
하지만 WHO 외부전문가위원장인 하비 파인버그 미국 국립의학연구소(IOM) 소장은 “신종플루 대응 실태를 평가하는 데 있어서 영국의학저널의 보고서가 충분히 고려되어야 한다”고 지난 7일 밝혀 찬사무총장과의 상반된 견해를 보였다.
이에 따른 외부 전문가위원회의 최종 검토 보고서는 내년 초에 발표될 예정이며, 제약회사 결탁설이 사실로 밝혀질 지에 귀추가 주목된다
