1 Comment

Subject: Wisdom vs. academics.

Dear all, in the not so distant past (2011) two of my compatriots Luc Bonneux and Wim Van Damme published a remarkably brave article in the WHO Bulletin. Regrettably, they remained silent during the recent C-plandemic. In 2011 they wrote: "Health is more than influenza

Luc Bonneux & Wim Van Damme

The repeated pandemic health scares caused by an avian

H5N1 and a new A(H1N1) human influenza virus are part

of the culture of fear.1–3 Worst-case thinking replaced balanced

risk assessment. Worst-case thinking is motivated by

the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic

that we must act immediately. Rather than wait for

information, we need a pre-emptive strike. But if resources

buy lives, wasting resources wastes lives. The precautionary

stocking of largely useless antivirals and the irrational vaccination

policies against an unusually benign H1N1 virus wasted

many billions of euros and eroded the trust of the public in

health officials.4–6 The pandemic policy was never informed

by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.

In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a

severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease

advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive

market of health governance, the struggle for attention, buda

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe Street (Room E7036), Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States of America (e-mail: dbarnett@jhsph.edu).

b Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, Postbus 11650, The Hague 2502 AR, Netherlands (e-mail: bonneux@nidi.nl).

c Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.

540 Bull World Health Organ 2011;89:539–540 | doi:10.2471/BLT.11.089086

Round table

Definition of pandemic influenza Discussion

gets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the

media only reacted to this welcome boon. We therefore need

fewer, not more “pandemic preparedness” plans or definitions.

Vertical influenza planning in the face of speculative catastrophes

is a recipe for repeated waste of resources and health

scares, induced by influenza experts with vested interests in

exaggeration. There is no reason for expecting any upcoming

pandemic to be worse than the mild ones of 1957 or 1968,7

no reason for striking pre-emptively, no reason for believing

that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives.

The opposite of pre-emptive strikes against worst-case

scenarios are adaptive strategies that respond to emerging

diseases of any nature based on the evidence of observed

virulence and the effectiveness of control measures. This

requires more generic capacity for disease surveillance, problem

identification, risk assessment, risk communication and

health-care response.1 Such strengthened general capacity

can respond to all health emergencies, not just influenza.

Resources are scarce and need to be allocated to many competing

priorities. Scientific advice on resource allocation is

best handled by generalists with a comprehensive view on

health. Disease experts wish to capture public attention and

sway resource allocation decisions in favour of the disease

of their interest. We referred previously to the principles

of guidance on health by the British National Institute for

Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE),2 cited as “We make

independent decisions in an open, transparent way, based on

the best available evidence and including input from experts

and interested parties.”8 Support from disease experts is crucial

in delivering opinion, scholarly advice and evidence to a

team of independent general scientists. But this team should

independently propose decisions to policy-makers and be held

accountable for them.

The key to responsible policy-making is not bureaucracy

but accountability and independence from interest groups.

Decisions must be based on adaptive responses to emerging

problems, not on definitions. WHO should learn to be

NICE: accountable for reasonableness in a process of openness,

transparency and dialogue with all the stakeholders, and

particularly the public."

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/270944

Expand full comment