Government Agencies Under Attack

With CDC Director Tom Frieden facing calls for his resignation, it’s not too hard (H/T Harley) to see more reasons why:

Top public health officials have collected $25 million in bonuses since 2007, carving out extra pay for themselves in tight federal budgetary times while blaming a lack of money for the Obama administration’s lackluster response to the Ebola outbreak.

U.S. taxpayers gave $6 billion in salaries and $25 million in bonuses to an elite corps of health care specialists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2007, according to data compiled by American Transparency’s, an online portal aggregating 1.3 billion lines of federal, state and local spending. The agency’s head count increased by 23 percent during that time, adding manpower and contributing to higher payrolls despite relatively flat funding.

From 2010 to 2013, all federal wages were frozen because of budgetary constraints, but CDC officials found a way to pay themselves through bonuses, overtime, within-grade increases and promotion pay raises.

The Washington Free Beacon and Newsbusters also both cite wasteful programmes funded by the CDC or NIH. Examples:

Telling Taxpayers How to Eat ($15 billion) – Yes, that’s billion with a “b” in front. In a massive overstep of government power, Obamacare carved out $15 billion for CDC to convince Americans to make “healthy” choices through “Community Transformation Grants” (CTG). The CTG program “supports efforts to modify behavior through anti-obesity campaigns, as well as anti-smoking and pro-sin tax regulations and legislation” at the state and local levels, according to the bipartisan Citizens Against Government Waste.

The NIH has also spent $15,313,372 on cessation studies devoted to every kind of smoker imaginable. Current studies are targeted at American Indians ($2,899,954); Chinese and Vietnamese men ($424,875); postmenopausal women ($4,151,850); the homeless ($558,576); Korean youth ($94,580); young schizophrenics ($397,802); Brazilian women smokers ($955,368); Latino HIV-positive smokers($471,530); and the LGBT community ($2,364,521).

Yale University is studying how to get “Heavy Drinkers” to stop smoking at a cost of $571,799. Other projects seek to use Twitter to provide “social support to smokers” ($659,469), and yoga ($1,763,048) as a way to quit.

There are lots more.

With luck, similar questions will soon be asked about the WHO. Probably the answers will be exactly the same wherever they’re asked.

That’s government-funded healthcare. Jo Nova tells how the Bridgestone Corporation in Liberia responded to Ebola:

The rubber plantation has 8,000 workers with 71,000 dependents. It is an hour north-east of Monrovia, surrounded by Ebola outbreaks. The virus arrived on the plantation in March. Knowing that the UN and the Liberian government were not going to save them, the managers sat around a rubber tree and googled “Ebola” and learned on the run instead. They turned shipping containers into isolation units, trucks into ambulances, and chemical cleaning suits into “haz-mat” gear. They trained cleaners, and teachers, they blocked visitors, and over the next five months dealt with 71 infections, but by early October were clear of the virus. There were only 17 survivors (the same 70% mortality rate as elsewhere). But without good management, there could have been so many more deaths.

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Government Agencies Under Attack

  1. magnetic01 says:

    To the above can be added the CDC’s monitoring of smoking in movies.

    The “CDC will regularly reporting [sic] smoking in movies along with other key public health indicators”.
    “This action puts the smoking that the big media companies put in their movies on the same category as other disease vectors.”

    And the “smoking in movies should have an R-rating” is a WHO initiative:

  2. Joe L. says:

    $659,469 has been spent in order to provide “social support to smokers” via Twitter??? By “social support,” it’s obvious they mean “anti-smoking propaganda”. Unbelievable. As a smoker, I get all the real social support I need (for free) right here on Frank’s blog, thank you very much.

  3. jaxthefirst says:

    I find myself, ever-so-slightly, wishing that even more Ebola cases would make it across western countries’ borders. Not too many, naturally, but just enough to keep the critics’ minds focussed on the horrendous amount of time, money and resources that is being wasted on these overbearing, heavy-handed “lifestyle,” anti-smoking (and they are, still, mostly anti-smoking) initiatives which are being so slavishly followed by these top knobs in various national and international “health” bodies. Because the possibility is that if Ebola remains – as seems likely – to be largely a problem restricted to the African continent, scrutiny of the wasteful, money-grubbing ways of these powerful bullies will once again wane and they’ll creep smugly back under their rocks, breathing a sigh of relief that – yet again – they’ve “got away with it.”

    • carol2000 says:

      I’m afraid that won’t work, because tobacco control is worse than Ebola.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Except that we don’t yet know how bad Ebola is going to get.

        • carol2000 says:

          Likewise tobacco control. At any rate, the flap over Ebola has everyone’s minds focused on Ebola, not on tobacco control.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Except that we don’t yet know how bad Ebola is going to get.

          Neither does the WHO.

          That alone points to the most obvious step: redirect the funds for this club of reality-removed bunch of people to those who do not shy to GO THERE.
          The MSF is losing some of it’s volunteers to Ebola as well; I have no idea if the MSF is currently being sucked into the WHO machinery; all I can see is that they DO what they can with a fraction of the funding the WHO frivolously wasts on “conferences” about the “tobacco epidemic” in rather expensive hotels in exotic locations. Let’s redirect the funds for the WHO to MSF for the time being in order to stem the spread of the disease.
          Everything can and will have to wait to be settled later. (Even though the WHO just couldn’t wait going for a smoking ban in parks even before this conference in Moskow ended.)

          I am sure the public will applaud the WHO’s efforts.

    • beobrigitte says:

      And, The i actually printed the full article today. Imagine…. THE INDEPENDENT allowing that!!!

      The key might be the opening sentence:
      I relaxed again this weekend. It was 21 days since I returned from Liberia to report on the human tragedy of the Ebola epidemic

      So, somebody else other than the team from “VICE” (no idea who they are but they provided a very good video by GOING TO MONROVIA when everyone else didn’t dare to) went to see for himself.

      The heroes included local medics and body collection teams, ignoring high death rates and stigma in communities to save their nation, and those such as doctors from Uganda who had combated Ebola at home and rushed to help. Then there are the volunteers with Médecins Sans Frontières – a charity that has played such a critical role, underlining again its unique credentials in a sector crammed with charlatans.

      It looks like Ian Birrell, too, has lost any confidence (of which he must have had more than any of us smokers have had for a long time!) in the powers that are supposed to do their job.

      The most egregious failure is that of the World Health Organisation, the United Nations body meant to show leadership on such matters. It seems incredible that when MSF first warned Ebola was getting out of control in April, it was rebuked on social media by a WHO spokesman. Two months later the spread and scale of the epidemic was obvious to experts – yet it took two more months for this inept organisation to finally concede there was an international health emergency. It blames local officials – yet even last week its boss spent the week discussing tobacco taxes in Russia rather than tackling the crisis.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Gets out Fiddle……… two three…………..Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton way down south in Dixie Land…….AWAY AWAY away down south at CDC watching the lies get spun……….

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Smokers Must Unite against Control-Freak Bureaucrats

      When will smokers and those who realize what is actually going on stand up and say, enough!

      By Frank Worley-Lopez

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      • Rose says:

        I always did like that song, Harley.
        Still, looking up the lyrics on youtube , I answered a question I’d wondered about for years.
        What exactly is a Rebel Yell?

        Civil War Veterans Doing the Rebel Yell

        So now I know. : )

        I don’t think I could even begin to make a sound like that, apart from which, it would terrify the neighbours.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Thanks for that Miss Rose I saw that vid a few years back…………..Imagine being a yankee and that yell was given as the charge began………….It was feared by federals big time during the War!

        • carol2000 says:

          It sounds like the same screech people do on every public occasion or watching football on TV. What’s the big deal with the falsetto? I always thought it sounds like the Girl Scouts attacking.

        • Rose says:

          Now theres a terrifying thought,Carol.

          “”Another plausible source of the rebel yell, advanced by historian Grady McWhiney, is that it derived from the screams traditionally made by Scottish Highlanders when they made a Highland charge during battle. At the Battle of Killiecrankie “Dundee and the Chiefs chose to employ perhaps the most effective pre-battle weapon in the traditional (highland) arsenal – the eerie and disconcerting howl,”

        • Reinhold says:

          During the Oktoberfest in Munich you can hear that for two weeks from every corner of the streets, all night long. Not sure if it comes from rebels.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Jan Johnson

    5 hrs

    No the government shouldn’t have that power. Once they get a toe in the pool all other freedoms evaporate like mist .

    #27 – “Government Must Have the Power to Make People Take Better Care of Themselves” : The…

    It’s easy to fall into the trap of the “quick fix” that suggests the use of force to address a perceived problem.|By Lawrence W. Reed

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Heres my premonition. Soon even he Nazis will decide its time to quit and start making excuses for all their BS…………..Its coming I feel it.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Doctors Earn $3.5 Billion in Kickbacks from Pharmaceutical Companies | Health Impact News

    The federal government unveiled data detailing 4.4 million payments made to doctors and teaching hospitals by pharmaceutical and medical device companies. All · 2,446 Shares · Oct 3, 2014

    Creepy ties between pharmaceutical companies and doctors

    Payments from Big Pharma reach hundreds of thousands of doctors.

    On Tuesday, the federal government released details of payments to doctors by every pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer in the country. The information is being made public under a provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The law mandates disclosure of payments to doctors, dentists, chiropractors, podiatrists and optometrists for things like promotional speaking, consulting, meals, educational items and research.

    It’s not quite clear what the data will show – in part because the first batch will be incomplete, covering spending for only a few months at the end of 2013 – but we at ProPublica have some good guesses. That’s because we have been detailing relationships between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry for the past four years as part of our Dollars for Docs project.

    We’ve aggregated information from the websites of some large drug companies, which publish their payments as a condition of settling federal whistle-blower lawsuits alleging improper marketing or kickbacks. In cooperation with the website Pharmashine, we’ve added data for 2013, which now covers 17 drug companies accounting for half of United States drug sales that year. (You can look up your doctor using our easy search tool.)

    Here are some facts we’ve learned from the data:

    1. Many, many health professionals have relationships with industry.

    Below are the approximate numbers of health professionals who received some payment from each company in 2013, excluding research. We based this on the number of unique names, cities and states per company.

    Company & Doctors Paid •Pfizer $142,600
    •AstraZeneca $111,200
    •Forest $98,900
    •Johnson & Johnson $97,000
    •GlaxoSmithKline $85,100
    •AbbVie $82,900
    •Boehringer Ingelheim $82,900
    •Merck $81,300
    •EliLilly $79,000
    •Novartis $64,500
    •Amgen $50,500
    •Valeant $21,200
    •UCB $21,200
    •Cephalon* $14,600
    •EMD Serono $7,900
    •ViiV $3,400
    Note: Dollars for Docs only includes data for Cephalon from the first six months of 2013.

    Dollars for Docs now includes 3.4 million payments since 2009, totaling more than $4 billion, of which $2.5 billion was for research. For 2013 alone, there were 1.2 million payments valued at nearly $1.4 billion.

    It’s not possible to calculate the exact number of physicians represented, because drug companies haven’t used unique identification numbers that cross company lines. But it’s clear that the figure is in the hundreds of thousands.

    Excluding research payments, the drugmaker Pfizer appeared to have interactions with the most healthcare professionals last year – about 142,600. AstraZeneca came in second with about 111,200. Johnson & Johnson and Forest Labs each had nearly 100,000. There are an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 active doctors in the United States.

    “Most physicians that are in private practice are touched in some way” by the industry, said George Dunston, co-founder of Obsidian HDS, the creator of Pharmashine. “You add that up and it’s a pretty significant number.”

    Surveys conducted in 2004 and again in 2009 showed that more than three-quarters of doctors had at least one type of financial relationship with a drug or medical device company. The figure dropped from about 94 percent in 2004 to 84 percent in 2009, said the lead author, Eric Campbell, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of research at the Mongan Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital.

    Dr. Campbell, who has been critical of physician-pharma ties, says he hasn’t conducted a followup survey but suspects that the percentage of doctors receiving payments has probably decreased somewhat since then.

    “The old approach was just to try to get as many docs as you can, blanket coverage, and establish relationships,” he said. “I think they’re being much more targeted and specific.”

    2. Some doctors have relationships with many companies.

    Those who read the fine-print disclosures accompanying medical journal articles know that doctors often have relationships with several companies that compete in a drug category (such as heart drugs or those for schizophrenia). Our data bear that out.

    Some highly sought-after key opinion leaders, as they are known in the industry, work for half a dozen or more companies in a given year.

    Marc Cohen, chief of cardiology at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, received more than $270,000 last year for speaking or consulting for six companies listed in Dollars for Docs. He is a prolific researcher and author.

    In an interview, Dr. Cohen said he works only with companies whose drugs are backed by large clinical studies. “In general terms, the science behind the product is very strong,” he said. “These are the companies that I’ve chosen to work with.”

    3. The biggest companies aren’t always the ones that spend the most. Some smaller drug companies spend big, too.

    Consider Forest Labs, a midsize drug company that was acquired in July by Actavis, a larger company based in Dublin. Forest’s $3.8 billion in United States drug sales in 2013 placed it on the edge of the top 20 companies, according to IMS Health, a health information company.

    Its sales were far lower than those of Novartis and Pfizer, the top two companies by sales last year. Yet Forest easily outspent these competitors on promotional speaking events last year.

    Forest spent $32.3 million on paid talks in 2013, compared with $12.7 million for Novartis and $12.6 million for Pfizer.

    An Actavis spokesman declined to comment on the company’s strategy, but a Forest spokesman said last year that the company spent more on speakers because it didn’t use pricey direct-to-consumer TV marketing. It also had more new drugs than its competitors.

    Companies with newer drugs or newly approved uses for their existing drugs often seem to spend more. Companies that don’t have many new products or have lost patent protection on their drugs, or are about to lose it, tend to pull back.

    “A lot of this has to do with where companies are in their development cycle of new products or emerging products, rather than an industry-specific trend,” said John Murphy, assistant general counsel at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry trade group.

    4. Meals vastly outnumber all other interactions between drug companies and doctors. But they account for a much smaller share of costs.

    Food accounted for nearly 50,000 of Amgen’s 55,000 payment reports, excluding research, in 2013, or roughly 91 percent. But at a cost of $3.1 million, those meals represented only about 20 percent of its payments. By comparison, the company spent almost double that amount, $6 million, on just 600 physician speakers.

    Other companies followed the same pattern; speakers can command $2,000 to $3,000 per engagement, or more.

    Given doctors’ busy schedules treating patients, mealtimes are often the only time to reach them, said Murphy, PhRMA’s lawyer. Company sales representatives bring information – and a meal. “A lot of doctors’ offices are closed for lunch,” he said. “During patient care hours, we want them to see patients.”

    Researchers say that whatever the motivation, even small gifts or meals can influence a doctor’s perception of a drug and lead to more prescribing of it.

    5. From year to year, doctors cycle in and out of relationships with companies.

    Massachusetts has required drug and device companies doing business there to publicly report their payments to its licensed health professionals since 2009.

    We looked at all of the physicians – about 3,500 of them – who received at least one payment for “bona-fide services,” such as speaking or consulting, from 2010 to 2012.

    About 60 percent of the doctors received payments in only one of those years. What this suggests is that most speakers and consultants are tapped for a particular task.

    Still, some doctors do appear to have long-term roles with companies. About 20 percent of doctors in the data received a payment in all three years. They represented most of the top-earners over the three-year period – and for that matter, the top earners in any given year.

    • carol2000 says:

      Just just a distraction. The vast majority of smokers quit because of the health lies, and only a very tiny minority use pharmaceutical methods.

      • prog says:

        True, but how to put them right? It’d really need to come from Public health itself and that ain’t going to happen wilfully. The truth will emerge in the long termer when all the predictions and lies are going to be difficult to defend.

        Anyway, TC, the anti-drinkers and diet puritans will start arguing amongst themselves over who has the biggest body count. There’s only so many deaths to share out.

        Might be mistaken but I believe Mike wrote in his latest book that TC is jealousy guarding the SAMMEC falsely generated 400,000 smoking deaths in the US from the anti-obesity crew who want part of the action.

        • carol2000 says:

          “Anyway, TC, the anti-drinkers and diet puritans will start arguing amongst themselves over who has the biggest body count. There’s only so many deaths to share out.”

          That’s nothing but wishful thinking. For propaganda purposes, it’s perfectly fine if the numbers don’t add up.

      • Some French bloke says:

        And lucky for them, for When Billy Bedsole Jr. decided he wanted to stop smoking, he turned to a man he trusted — his doctor. So when his doctor prescribed Chantix, Billy thought it was finally the answer he’d been hoping for.
        But instead of kicking the habit, Billy started having memory loss, depression, and thoughts of suicide. His behavior became so erratic that he had to be hospitalized.
        These horrible side effects put Billy and his family through, what his lawyer describes as an “incredible ordeal.”

        “Pfizer preps its case for FDA pulling Chantix’s black-box warning” Tracy Staton, September 25, 2014, FiercePharma,

    • carol2000 says:

      “The figure dropped from about 94 percent in 2004 to 84 percent in 2009, said the lead author, Eric Campbell, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School…”

      See, it’s a project from Harvard, and that’s why it automatically gets mass media coverage. Those scumbags at Harvard are the very mothership of scientific fraud, and they go around pointing fingers at others’ supposed corruption. All this does is help them pretend that they deserve to be put on a pedestal and treated like the pinnacle of moral perfectionism, when they’re the worst garbage on the planet earth.

      Furthermore, when they bother to mention specific medicines, all the fuss is over anything but quit-smoking type drugs (unless its primary use is for something else). This is commensurate with the trivial place those quit-smoking drugs have in their balance sheets. Yet you seem to think you’re proving that Big Pharma is responsible for the anti-smoking movement by parroting all this irrelevant crap. And we’re supposed to believe that doctors are corrupted when a company pays for their fricking meal, as if doctors don’t have money up the wazoo for their own meals – and as if another company couldn’t pay for another meal. Don’t insult our intelligence with bilge like that!

      Plus, do you know what doctors do with those free samples that supposedly corrupt them? They give them out to people who don’t have any money, so they don’t have to pay or so they can try something out to see if it works before they fork over their precious dollars for it. When doctors can no longer accept those free samples, those patients are S.O.L.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    CONFUSION: US Humanitarian Aid Going to ISIS…

    Not only are foodstuffs, medical supplies—even clinics—going to ISIS, the distribution networks are paying ISIS ‘taxes’ and putting ISIS people on their payrolls.

    GAZIANTEP, Turkey — While U.S. warplanes strike at the militants of the so-called Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, truckloads of U.S. and Western aid has been flowing into territory controlled by the jihadists, assisting them to build their terror-inspiring “Caliphate.”

    The aid—mainly food and medical equipment—is meant for Syrians displaced from their hometowns, and for hungry civilians. It is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, European donors, and the United Nations. Whether it continues is now the subject of anguished debate among officials in Washington and European. The fear is that stopping aid would hurt innocent civilians and would be used for propaganda purposes by the militants, who would likely blame the West for added hardship.

    It just gets better and better…………lol

  8. It appears to be the same in the UK, but everyone is involved. I don’t mean every single person is crooked, but doctors, chemists, pharma conpanies – everyone.

    Bent pharmacists:

    Taxpayers are being charged up to 40 times the usual cost for common over-the-counter products being prescribed by NHS doctors, The Telegraph can disclose.

    The NHS is currently paying up to £89.50 for cod-liver oil capsules — identical versions of which can be bought on the high street for about £3.50. Taxpayers are also being hit with inflated costs for vitamin E, evening primrose oil and other over-the-counter products.

    Despite being freely available without prescription, the products are all regularly prescribed by GPs and NHS doctors — a situation which now appears to be being exploited for commercial gain. The prescription pricing scandal has emerged in the past two years because of a loophole in the rules which allows chemists to select “suitable” products from drug companies and bill the taxpayer.

    The disclosures will add to fears that the system is not being properly policed. Last month, The Telegraph revealed that drug companies were colluding with pharmacists to overcharge the NHS millions of pounds for a group of drugs called “specials”.

    The prices of more than 20,000 drugs could have been artificially inflated, with backhanders paid to chemists who agreed to sell them. Representatives of some pharmaceutical companies agreed to invoice chemists for drugs at up to double their actual cost.

  9. Prescribing Analytics –

    The current evidence shows that for most patients, all drugs from this class [statins] are equally safe and effective, so doctors are usually advised to use the cheapest. The analysis examined how much money was spent in each area on the more expensive drugs. It looks at the entire prescriptions dataset (37 million rows of data), and therefore represents results from facts, not models. If the research had been conducted a year ago, over £200m could have been saved, looking forward the team expect to identify similar potential savings.

    This is part of a wider issue of spending on proprietary drugs in cases where good and far cheaper generic equivalents exist. Previous research has estimated that these wider patterns cost the NHS over £1 billion pounds a year in excess spend*.

    The cost of an individual prescription item can vary from as little as 81p for a generic, to over £20 for drugs still under licence to the pharmaceutical companies that develop.

  10. Then there’s plain old fraud:

    The former head of NHS Counter Fraud Services has warned in a report that fraud is costing the NHS £5bn a year, with a further £2bn lost to financial errors.

    The amount lost to fraud alone could pay for nearly 250,000 nurses, according to the report. It is the focus of an investigation by the Panorama programme, which is due to be broadcast tonight on BBC One at 8.30pm.

    Jim Gee, co-author of the Portsmouth University study, was director of NHS Counter Fraud Services for eight years until 2006.

    The £7bn estimate is based on a comparison with global figures, which suggest average losses to fraud and error of around 7% of healthcare budgets. It is 20 times higher than the figure recorded in the government’s annual fraud indicator report.

  11. In the USA:

    The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.

    The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

  12. Pingback: Fraud, Errors and Bribes Costing the NHS Billions | Real Street

  13. Pingback: Stewart Cowan's Weblog

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Doctors Chief: CDC Curbs Secondhand Smoke More Than Ebola

    Thursday, 16 Oct 2014 11:31 PM

    By Bill Hoffmann and Todd Beamon

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more safeguards against secondhand smoke than it does regarding Ebola, Dr. Jane Orient, director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said on Thursday.

    “If you look at the precautions against secondhand smoke, they are absurd,” Orient told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV. “The hazard from secondhand smoke, unless you’re just sensitive to it and it bothers you, are really nonexistent.

    “And yet, we have all these … expensive restrictions against these non-hazards — and a pathogenic, lethal organism that can infect you with one to 10 particles, we’re so cavalier about?” Orient asked. “This just really does not make sense.”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The hazard from secondhand smoke, unless you’re just sensitive to it and it bothers you, are really nonexistent.


    • Frank Davis says:

      How refreshing to hear a doctor speak a bit of plain common sense. I sometimes wonder whether the whole damn lot of them are completely barking mad.

      Perhaps those of them who aren’t batshit crazy should form their own association. Maybe the ADNBC: Association of Doctors who aren’t Batshit Crazy?

      • junican says:

        I’ve said the same about the BMA, Frank. It seems that most organisations of that kind, which have little control exerted over them by their members, eventually become more and more extreme, as they become more and more controlled by fanatics. The only way to return control to the members is to set up a rival organisation and attract members from the BMA. But it takes money, dedication and time.

    • carol2000 says:

      Unfortunately, it was just a passing mention, whose purpose was only to make a point about the comparative lack of protection against Ebola.

  15. smokingscot says:

    At last, the venue for COP 7 – New Delhi in 2016 (one of the most polluted cities anywhere).

    As the cost to UK taxpayers of firing a half dozen experts to attend COP 6 in Moscow (a three hour flight from London) seems to have been £370,000, then we’ll be seeing a cool 600 grand in 2016 as at today’s prices.

    (Last para)

    • beobrigitte says:

      At last, the venue for COP 7 – New Delhi in 2016 (one of the most polluted cities anywhere).

      Pffffffmmmhhhh….. hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

      I actually do hope that by then the experts qualifying for New Delhi have been fired and enjoy the view outside the job centers…

  16. beobrigitte says:

    With luck, similar questions will soon be asked about the WHO. Probably the answers will be exactly the same wherever they’re asked.

    Starting off with Who funds the WHO:
    (This war written 7 years ago)
    WHO guidelines state that it will not accept money from drug companies, but how rigorous is it in enforcing this? Michael Day investigates

    Serious questions have been raised about whether the World Health Organization is using patient groups as a conduit for receiving proscribed donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Email correspondence passed to the BMJ seems to show that in June 2006 Benedetto Saraceno, the director of WHO’s department of mental health and substance abuse, suggested that a patient organisation accept $10 000 (£5000; €7000) from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on WHO’s behalf. The sum was then to be passed on to WHO—ostensibly with the intention of obscuring the origins of the donation. GSK withdrew its offer of funding when it learnt that acceptance was conditional on obscuring its origin. However, the email exchange indicates that other sums of money originating from drug companies may have already been channelled to WHO through patient groups.

    When asked about this correspondence, Dr Saraceno told the BMJ that his email to the patient organisation was “clumsily worded” and that he had “never intended to solicit donations from the pharmaceutical industry through” the patient organisation. In the email dated 16 June 2006, Dr Saraceno thanks Mary Baker of the European Parkinson’s Disease Association (EPDA), for raising the $10 000 “requested by the WHO.” The money was to have funded a report on neurological diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, for which GSK produces treatments.

    Dr Saraceno then seems to advise Mary Baker on how to get round the WHO’s rules forbidding drug industry funding. “Unfortunately,” he says, “WHO cannot receive funds from pharmaceutical industry. Our legal Office will reject the donation. WHO can only receive funds from Government agencies, NGOs, foundations and scientific institutions or professional organisations. Therefore, I suggest that this money should be given to EPDA and eventually …

    About 2 years ago this question “Who funds the WHO” somehow came up again.

    I was genuinely surprised to see who is funding WHO. First up, it gets a lot, I mean a LOT, of money from private foundations. At least 38 foundations provide 18% of WHO’s VC funding, according to one estimate. Just one foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (yes Bill Gates, the man who gave the world Microsoft and his wife) donated most of that – slightly more than $446m in fact. That’s more than any other donor except the United States and 24 times more money than Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa combined (the so-called newly-emerging economies). As with other voluntary contributions, BMGF doesn’t just give its money to the WHO and say ‘here’s our donation, do what you like with it’. No, its voluntary contribution is “specified”, it can only be spent on specific things decided by Bill and Melinda (and they really do decide themselves – their Foundation is very hierarchical).

    Does this mean that Bill and Melinda Gates specified that their donations are only to be used for tobacco control purposes and only measly $150 000 are to be used to investigate the possibility of culturing genetically modified Chinese Hamster Ovary cells for producing an Ebola vaccine in order to prevent a cousin of the tobacco plant we ENJOY burning being hailed as a life saver?
    The Gates must be very poor, empty, rich people!

    What the WHO does with the money we, the smokers, know best! Dr. Chan just had to give the meeting in Moskow priority over the Ebola epidemic which kills REAL people!!!
    The non-skeletal-look-people will know next, then come the beer lovers…….

    And on 9.10.14 the WHO began impudently to hunt for sympathy (and money!) by blaming the world:
    Oxfam agrees. “Donors must take their share of the blame for the WHO’s slow reaction to the crisis,” said Mohga Kamal-Yanni, senior health and policy advisor. “The cuts in funding to the WHO are in part responsible for serious cuts in essential functions, as illustrated by a lack of prompt surveillance and response to the Ebola outbreak.”

    No. The WHO CHOSE to ignore the warning issued by MSF numerous times. And it DID have the money to feed and house it’s people in Moskow to cook up more torture for law abiding people who happen to be smokers.

    Ah, the lack of funds to deal with the Ebola epidemic….. Did Bill and Melinda Gates specify that their donation is NOT to be used to prevent the spread of the Ebola epidemic? Did all the other VOLUNTARY DONORS specify that their donations are NOT to be used to prevent the spread of the Ebola epidemic?
    And, do all voluntary donors NOW specify that their donation is NOT to be used to help out MSF whose staff, too, is dying of Ebola? WHO, don’t roll into Liberia with trumpets and fanfares to rapidly build a few hospitals. The much quicker way would be for the WHO to hand over cash to MSF and send their own board of directors to Liberia to observe reality. REAL DEATHS.

    Not only have countless (the actual number of Ebola deaths is estimated to be much higher than the figure we are given!) people UNNECESSARILY died, the WHO provides a gruesome ‘role model’; ‘it’s all ok; just blame everything and everyone for your own failure and make yourself look good by conveying the idea that you are the victim’.

    It looks like all governments have to put their hands into tax payers money to bail out an incompetent WHO whose interests are only the destruction of a homogenous society.

    I am angry. Very, very, very ANGRY.

  17. beobrigitte says:

    Frank, there is a little contribution in the dungeon….

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Somebody go bust this bytch Nazi nurses ass I cant get in……….

    • beobrigitte says:

      Sorry, no access for me, either! They only appear to allow facebook people’s replies..
      But, THIS is interesting, especially for the full time vapers who occasionally read here:

      • The World Health Organization is currently recommending a ban on indoor use of e-cigarettes, as well as sales and advertising targeting youth. E-cigarette devices expel nicotine, formaldehyde, nickel, acrolein and other harmful substances.

      Is that the same WHO who just had to miss an Ebola epidemic that has the potential to spread into all our lives because there was a few days in a 5 star hotel in Moskow with the option of deciding what to do to smokers/vapers next, which was far more important than this ‘lousy Ebola epidemic’?

      Not only has this -giving rather successfully the impression of being dumb- Belinda Blair dug out the old idiotic tobacco control lies, she now peddles the same bullsh*t for the vapers.

  19. carol2000 says:

    “Caremark, the pharmacy benefits management arm of CVS, will soon require ‘some customers’ to make a $15 co-payment on prescriptions filled at other pharmacies that sell tobacco products, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.” (After cutting tobacco sales, CVS is now pressuring other pharmacies to do the same. By Jason Millman. Washington Post, October 20, 2014.)

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.