 
 
(faint ambient sounds)
(faint sound of
children playing)
How many of you,
put, have family
or close friends with cancer
or have experienced cancer.
Put up your hands.
What about diabetes?
How about infertility?
Family or close friends.
Now I want those of you who put
your hand up at least once
to put it up again,
for any of those questions,
and look around you.
(music)
today every third
person develops cancer.
Who will it be?
(Obama) Because if we want
to protect Americans from
Ebola here at home, we
have to end it over there.
H1N1,
SARS, MERS
Universal health coverage is the
single most powerful concept
that public health has to offer.
We will not let the people down.
(radio static)
(radio static)
But after Fukushima,
I think, you can
see that everyone
knows that there's
a kind of official
and high level cover
up and the WHO is
involved in it.
The WHO's been criticised for
reacting too slowly to the
outbreak, do you think any
of that criticism is fair?
They don't have the money, they
don't have the
capacity, they don't
have the leadership, they don't
have the courage
to say 'let's go'.
I'm a filmmaker, I have a
daughter, it is important
to me that she finds the
world in good condition.
That is why I'm travelling to
the WHO headquarters in Geneva.
The American journalist
Robert Parsons lives here.
For 20 years now he's been
writing about the WHO.
Until a few years ago,
every Monday, the
opening day of the
World Health Assembly
there was a sumptuous
reception at the
WHO given by the
Director General
that was the great
centrepiece where
everybody met and talked.
It was a
very good situation
for pulling everybody
together in an informal setting.
(music)
Now, more than ever,
that sort of thing
has been replaced by
a private reception.
And they are organised
by industry.
I'm particularly pleased to
have two ministers of health.
And the industry spends a
lot of money, for them
it's just part of the
cost of doing business.
It's a way of making
direct contact
with the people who
back in their home
countries are making
decisions to formulate
and implement public
health policy.
It's extraordinarily
expensive, you
can imagine it,
if you have 1,000
people and you give
100 francs a person
it's 100,000 francs
right there at least,
just to feed people who
are already over-fed.
There's no limit on
the champagne or the
wine and it's always
very good wine.
Straight through if you can.
No you can't.
(narrator) What a
promising start.
But originally it must
have been about more.
The suffering of
millions of human beings
in scores of countries
will be alleviated
and many, many thousands
of lives will be saved.
(applause)
WHO has positively
changed everything.
Smallpox was completely
eradicated which was the
first time ever that a
disease was wiped out.
The world saves each year
1000 million dollars
on vaccines and care
of the sick alone.
According to Robert
Parsons, the WHO is
infiltrated by the industry
from the very start.
Here.
This one's in English.
This is in the San
Francisco examiner.
Anyway, WHO was not
happy with my coverage
because it made them
look less than good.
(music)
Ever since the
1950s, studies have
shown that smoking
damages health.
But for decades the
WHO does little
to oppose the tobacco industry.
(music)
How often does your
job call you out
of bed in the middle
of the night.
Well if you were a
doctor it would be often
and generally there isn't
much time to spare.
Coffee doctor?
Oh fine!
Have a Camel with your coffee
Thanks.
You know, this night work's
kind of rough isn't it.
That's right,
but a Camel's always a pleasure.
The majority of politicians
take no action
against tobacco
advertising for decades.
Nothing is done to check the
profits of the tobacco industry
until charges are
brought against
it by its victims and the USA.
As late as 1994, heads
of the tobacco industry
testified before the
American congress.
Do you believe that
nicotine is not addictive?
I believe that nicotine
is not addictive.
I believe that nicotine
is not addictive.
I believe that nicotine
is not addictive.
The real issue is: Should
cigarettes be outlawed.
Gradually the tobacco
companies are obliged
to publish their
internal documents.
These general requests
are getting very broad.
No that's not broad at all Mr.
Campbell.
Will you provide that
information to the committee?
We're extremely concerned
about competitive activity...
Yes or no Mr. Campbell?
I will do my best, yes.
Their strategies to combat
the WHO are made public.
One example is the Boca Raton
action plan from the year 1988.
Senior figures at Philip Morris
met in Florida and drew up a
number of sophisticated
strategies
to limit the power of the WHO.
The first and most
important aim.
This organisation
has extraordinary
influence on government
and consumers
and we must find a
way to diffuse this.
The WHO gets under pressure.
(speaking French)
The evidence show that
tobacco companies had
operated for many years
with the deliberate purpose
of subverting the efforts
of WHO to control tobacco.
(music)
(applause)
One of these
institutes is lead by
the American lawyer
Paul Dietrich.
Philip Morris finances
it with $240,000 a year.
At the same time
Dietrich is a consultant
for the WHO regional
office in America.
When his double
role becomes known,
Dietrich moves into
the finance industry.
And we bought back
our own bonds, that
money never went back
into the economy!
He won't agree to talk to me.
And the WHO report on the
strategies of the tobacco
industry, 6 other
consultants are mentioned.
The British toxicologist
Frank Sullivan
for instance, claims
that passive smoking
doesn't harm your health.
His study on the
subject is financed
by Philip Morris.
Hello, Frank Sullivan.
Hello Mr Sullivan,
oh (awkward laughter)
Good to hear you.
I tell you why I'm calling you.
I came across the
tobacco scandal at
WHO and there your
name is mentioned.
(Sullivan) My name?!
yes.
Oh I didn't know that.
(narrator) Were you
a WHO consultant?
Yes I'm an (awkward stutter)
Yeah, I am
I, I, I'm a consultant
for WHO, and I also used
to be a consultant in
the tobacco industry.
There was a great long
form you had to fill
in every time I went
to a meeting at WHO.
(narrator) But did you
declare in those forms
that you also consulted
tobacco industry?
Yes, yes, yes.
And it was no problem for WHO?
No, no, no because (laughing)
it wasn't a big issue.
From when till when were
where you a WHO consultant.
Oh, I don't know when.
Did you stop after the
tobacco scandal or not?
No, no, no.
(music)
In the year 2000, Sullivan's
collaboration with the tobacco
industry becomes public, but he
still continues to
advise the WHO.
I meet with two department
leaders combating
tobacco under the
auspices of the WHO.
We have a zero tolerance
approach as I
said the Director
General says, the
tobacco industry is
our number 1 enemy
and we wear that
badge very proudly.
(narrator) Is Frank Sullivan
still a WHO consultant.
Absolutely not I mean...
They can't because the
names of all those
persons are well known
through the documents.
But did Frank
Sullivan consult to
WHO in for example
2002 let's say?
Not that I'm aware of as
well too, and again the
policies that are in place
now is that all consultants
no matter whether
they're working in
tobacco control or
infectious diseases
or anywhere in the
organisation, have
to sign a declaration
of interest.
(narrator) But this
means a lot of trust.
Don't you think they
should be reviewed?
Trust I think that
you should trust
until such a day you lack trust.
You cannot just start by
already being suspicious
about people and their
capacity to do things.
That's good.
Thank you so much.
We are not alone during
the conversation,
three WHO staff are
watching us and
the press spokesman
conducts the person
I'm interviewing with
silent gestures.
I would like to
know about conflict
of interest forms and I would
like to see the conflict of
interest forms of
Frank Sullivan.
I just am able to refer
the question on to the
necessary people because
that might be in the
archive of the organisation
but in the role of
the reference library
and that's what we do.
My official enquiry about
Frank Sullivan's conflict of
interest form is a dead end
despite countless phone calls.
(music)
The WHO and also Thomas Zeltner
they always say ok we had
a problem and there was single
persons who were corrupt.
This was Sullivan, Paul
Dietrich and so on.
But I'm always doubting was it
really single persons
and now it's
over or could you
say that entire
segments of WHO are corrupt?
We have all the tobacco
company documents
which show how major
corporations operate.
And the pharmaceutical
companies or the chemical
companies do not operate
any differently.
Their obligation to their
shareholders completely
overwhelms any consideration
of public health.
So these are the people that
are involved in the H1N1 push.
(tense music)
Swine flu, or H1N1, is presented
by the WHO and in the
public media as a huge threat.
Wrongly as it later emerges.
(newsreader) We are in the
earliest days of the pandemic)
(news reports playing
over each other)
Do you remember swine flu?
You were really frightened.
The numbers are staggering.
Well first of all, they
are estimated by the
WHO to affect 2bn people
worldwide with H1N1.
Joining us now from
Cibolo, Texas,
Patrick and Robyn Henshaw. Their
family has been hit hard by this
Swine flu, good
morning to you both.
Good morning.
My administration's taken
several precautions to
address the challenge posed
by the 2009 H1N1 flu virus.
If you've been diagnosed
with probable or
presumed 2009 H1N1 or Swine
flu in recent months,
you may be surprised to know
this. The odds are you didn't
have H1N1 flu. In fact you
probably didn't have flu at all.
WHO is very happy to be taking
part in this hearing...
(several people speaking
at the same time)
But I've heard no reason why.
Many countries
including Germany,
Italy, France and Great Britain
concluded secret agreements with
pharmaceutical companies
before the Swine
flu incident, which
obliged them to
purchase Swine flu vaccinations.
But only if the WHO issued
a pandemic level 6 alert.
(music)
The world is now at the start
of the 2009 influenza pandemic.
Swine flu makes
considerable profits
for the manufacturers
of vaccines.
In first quarter net profit,
saving its Swine flu vaccine,
Lantes, for the gains.
France's largest drug maker
said it's net profit in the
quarter rose to 1.71bn euros,
that's 2.26bn US dollars.
I tried to arrange an
interview with the
person responsible for
Swine flu at the WHO,
Keiji Fukuda,
he was often on
television at the time.
But I get an appointment with
the official press spokesman.
11 countries,
officially reporting
331 cases of influenza A
H1N1 infection, with 10 deaths.
Were you aware of the
contracts between
pharmaceutical companies
and governments?
You have to be aware of this.
Of course, you
have to be aware of
everything that's going on.
And it is extremely easy to
after the fact say, well maybe X
should not have done Y, and
A should not have done B.
However, think about
the opposite.
What would have happened
if the influenza
killed 50 percent of the people
infected and there
was no vaccine.
Then you and others would be
standing here today getting
really mad at us for not having
made vaccine a possibility.
Now in terms of an
overall assessment
of the severity of what we are
seeing, it's probably
fair to call the
situation something
like moderate.
At the time I am
pregnant and I avoid
airports, crowds and
all forms of travel.
Public media exaggerates
with words and
images, the danger
resulting from swine flu.
(music and ambulance siren)
Could they have
declared the pandemic
level 6 also with
the old definition?
So this is er...
This was removed
before 2009, shortly
before H1N1.
Of course, we would like to
have a vaccine tomorrow.
We would have wanted to
have had it yesterday.
In 2009, Miss Kieny
is a member of
the WHO Swine flu working group.
Previously she had
worked for the French
pharmaceutical
company Transgene.
The press spokesman doesn't
allow me to interview her,
so I try to approach her
directly at a conference.
I ask Miss Kieny why the
criteria of severity was
deleted from the definition
of a pandemic phase.
(music)
The WHO working group on Swine
flu consists of 13 external
consultants. Two of them
report conflicts of interest.
Neil Ferguson declares
consultancy fees
from GlaxoSmithKline,
Baxter and Roche,
the manufacturers of
the swine flu vaccines
and medications. Not a
problem for the WHO.
In 2007, Albert Osterhaus
loses his voting right on the
Dutch heath commission due to
his conflicts of interest.
He declares to the WHO that he
has shares in the pharma company
Viroclinics, which is suspected
of profiting from Swine flu.
He also declares that he
is the chairman of ESWI,
describing it as a group
of independent scientists.
In fact it is partly financed
by vaccine manufacturers.
Because I also did some
research about H1N1,
could we also discuss
this a little bit later?
Yeah?
I can tell you there's no
scientific meeting today
organised that is not being
sponsored by industry
and rightly so.
Industry is making
the vaccines, it's
not the national
institutes that are
making the vaccines
any longer, industry
is doing it.
(narrator) I'm very curious, are
you still a WHO consultant?
At the moment I'm working
more with the private sector
as well so I'm still
consulting from time to time.
(narrator) Are you still
working with this
European Scientists
against Influenza?
Yes, I'm the chair of that
particular organisation.
(narrator) Because
I saw that you
declared this as a
conflict of interest.
No no it's not a conflict
of interest but I declare
also what might be perceived
as a conflict of interest.
No but you have to be
very careful there so at
least if you say that,
people can hold it against
you yeah but at least I
can always say and I have
always done that. At least
you show what you do.
(narrator) It was written there
'independent group
of scientists', when
I looked on the
website I saw it's
funded by all the
vaccine producers.
No no it's not funded by,
some money comes from
vaccine producers but
there's money coming
from many other sources
as well and that's the
same with WHO and a lot
of other organisations.
As long as you're
transparent and show
what you're doing,
it's fine I think.
(narrator) How is the
percentage of funding?
I don't know exactly, but there
is a substantial part of
the funding comes from
elsewhere. From meetings, comes
from European projects, and
there is a percentage coming
from industry as well and
that's completely transparent.
It's fine to bring it up
again but for me it's over.
I don't get any hard figures
from Mr. Osterhaus either.
Without any facts,
without transparency,
I can't make any progress here.
What about the WHO?
We didn't say anything
- No, no
No, I wouldn't like you
to use what I just
said but I'm happy to
say something else.
Please don't approach
people with a camera.
We have issues,
please don't do that.
I ask and then it's fine?
If you ask and you set up
the interview, that's ok.
At the country level,
I hear good news and
I hear bad news
about engagement with
non state actors.
We found out that there has
been a big lack of transparency
with the pandemic alert
experienced in 2009.
What did you do since then
to have more transparency
concerning the decisions
done, concerning the staff,
concerning the declarations
of conflicts of
interest. How do you
want to improve this?
I want to erm...
agree with you. There
is no replacement
of transparency and
accountability.
And that's the only way to
hold people to account.
But in order to do that, we must
recognise that in this 21st
century, no government
can provide
everything to their people.
So you do need to work
with the industry.
But work in a way that there is
no room for conflict
of interest.
(road noise and music)
In the case of the
pharmaceutical
industry, it's even
more difficult for
the WHO to maintain
it's independence
than with the tobacco industry.
On the one hand the WHO
is dependent on the
pharmaceutical
industries for research
and medication. But the
industries financial
interests mustn't
damage the WHO's
activities in the
area of health.
One thing is clear, today the
pharmaceutical
industry is part of
the health system, just like the
governments that
control the WHO.
(applause)
Pfizer doesn't need a PR man,
they've got the Prime Minister!
Secretary Clinton has a
number of super packs
and in the last filing
period reported
receiving 15 million
dollars from Wall Street.
(booing)
My whole life I've
been a business
man. I've contributed
to most of them.
I've given to
democrats, I've given
to Hillary, I've
given to everybody!
Because that was my job.
I gotta give to them
because when I want
something I get it.
When I call...
they kiss my ass.
Ok, it's true, they kiss my ass.
(cheering and applause)
Politics are losing power.
And that's also reflected in
the financing of the WHO.
In the 1990s, all countries
froze their membership
contributions in the wake
of the financial crisis,
Desperate times do indeed
call for desperate measures.
We are in a mess.
The financial crisis hit the
world like a sudden jolt
and it hit the world where
it hurts most... money.
Today UN organisations,
foundations, NGOs and industry
contribute almost 40 percent
of the WHO's annual budget.
The second largest source
of finance right after
the USA is the Bill and
Melinda Gates foundation.
30 years ago, in starting
Microsoft we had a
very ambitious vision: a
computer for everyone.
Now I join you in seeking to
achieve an even more important
vision which is good health
for every human being.
Today the WHO
relies on voluntary
contributions like that from
the Gates foundation, but these
are often linked to conditions.
Bill Gates declares,
'our priorities are
your priorities',
not the other way around.
A Freudian slip?
Our priorities are
your priorities.
(applause)
Today the WHO's annual budget
amounts to about 2bn dollars.
Coca Cola spends twice that
much on advertising alone.
And the hospitals around lake
Geneva spend 6bn dollars a year.
When it was founded,
the WHO could decide
how to distribute
it's funds itself.
Now 70 percent of it's
budget is tied to
particular projects,
countries or regions.
If the WHO receives funding
to fight malaria for
example, it can't use that
money to combat Ebola.
(background chatter)
The Ebola interim
assessment panel put it
in
very precise words.
In present WHO does not
have the operational
capacity or culture to
deliver a full emergency
public health response.
(applause)
(narrator) What
does the Director
General of the WHO
think about that?
I want to ask her what
constraints she is under.
I need that!
(laughing)
Newspaper?
No I'm doing a cinema
documentary, I'm a filmmaker.
Ahh, ok, let's discuss the date.
You don't want July, August?
No August would
also be possible.
July, August whatever,
not so hectic.
If that's better for you then
ok I will adapt my schedule.
(music)
Since I can't get to
speak to Margaret Chan,
I meet one of her
close advisors.
(music and ambient sounds)
I think it's simply a
wrong perception to think
there can be external
independent review.
Because then you have to say who
is selecting this independent
expert, and who is controlling
their independence
and who is controlling
the independence
of those controlling
the independence.
There is no external entity
as such independent.
Of course he's right,
but he's wrong.
- You know, he's mixing everything up because
- this world is as it is and you have to do
what you can to make sure
that the independence
of the science is as
good as possible.
It will never ever be perfect,
he's quite right by that,
but he should be talking about
his own. I mean he's from
Switzerland, he came straight
from Switzerland which is a
country that is
completely locked
in to a partnership approach
and he's in charge of
partnerships at WHO.
So I know Gaudenz was very
keen that any countries could
come in, as long as it was
transparent he didn't mind.
This is our
opposition to the non
state actors thing as it is, ok?
Namibia will be onside
with us isn't it?
African groups
generally are worried
about it. How many
people are in?
Quite a few now.
Yeah quite a few, that's enough.
What's going on with them?
Next room
- Next room
What's happening there is those
industrialised countries
that would really like
to expand their markets
into the developing world,
they are finding a way to
let WHO allow these companies
in to influence policy.
(speaker) The world
in which the WHO
operates today is
very different from
the world in which
the organisation was
established more
than 60 years ago.
Member states are also
influenced by non state actors.
But since they are our bosses,
and they're sovereign member
states, if it's a private
sector entity, if it's an
NGO or whoever influences
them, as long as they make
it a national position,
it's a national position
and we accept it as such.
(music)
(children playing)
Professor Yamashita is
contributing to the
trivialisation
of the risk of radioactive
contamination in public.
Yamashita works
together with the WHO
in cases of nuclear catastrophe.
Is the WHO downplaying the
dangers of nuclear radiation?
Is it for example,
keeping silent
about a rise in thyroid cancer?
There's a lot here
about Swine flu
and almost nothing
about Fukushima.
I would like to talk
to the Director
General about this in person.
Maybe you can help
me, how can I get
an interview with Margaret Chan.
(inaudible)
Very difficult.
I have to become friends
with you, ok I see.
(man) She's very busy.
I know I know, this
is why I'm asking.
Can we get you someone else?
No.
Look, no one can promise
you interview with Dr
Chan because she really
prefers others to speak.
So there are some
circumstances where she
does it but nothing
that can be guaranteed.
(music)
(children shouting)
It's difficult to find anybody
who is allowed to talk.
The mayor of Matsumoto,
Akira Sugenoya,
is also a doctor and has
founded a convalescence
camp for children from
contaminated areas.
Konichiwa!
As a result of experience
after Chernobyl, the WHO
recommendations for issuing
iodine were revised in the
year 1999 under the supervision
of the British scientist
Keith Baverstock, a member
of staff at the WHO.
(music)
Thank you Mr. moderator for
that kind introduction, and
thank you for the invitation
to come and present here.
I guess I... Ok I
want to start this
presentation by saying a
few words about lessons
learnt from a previous nuclear
power plant accident,
namely the one in
Chernobyl in 1986.
When I started my
programme with WHO,
within a few weeks I learnt that
there was a claim
that there was a
large number of thyroid cancers
in children and this ended up in
the mission to Minsk. We saw an
astonishing number
of children who'd
been operated for
thyroid cancer.
Quite young children,
so to see as we did
on that day possibly
1 maybe 12 cases in
one place at one time,
all having been
operated was really
quite extraordinary.
We took it from there.
And with our
Belarusian colleagues
published two short
papers in the
journal nature to
draw attention to it.
After the papers were
published, WHO asked
me to withdraw the
paper from Nature.
A paper published with
about 5 or 6 other
people, all agreeing
on this position.
And he asked me to withdraw
that paper from publication.
After it had been published.
Chrysler who worked at WHO
Geneva, yes. He threatened me.
How did he threaten you?
With my career.
He said your career will be
shortened if you don't do this.
And was it shortened?
No.
I wonder why in Fukushima
area it wasn't distributed.
I don't know.
I don't know, they
should have given them.
Yeah.
They don't like to cause panic.
Did you have any contact with
WHO after the TEPCO accident?
I still find it beyond belief
that Naoto Kan was convinced at
the time that no radioactivity
would emerge after the accident.
Just one day after the
accident a monitoring
station of the
organisation CTBTO
recorded raised levels
of radioactivity
200km from the nuclear
power station.
(music)
But who is right?
(chanting)
(applause)
What do you think
today about iodine
intake after nuclear accident?
Well again it's more or less
what was said in the video.
People are not taking
iodine as of the moment the
Japanese authorities have no
said that should be done.
They have distributed iodine
tablets, pre-positioned
them but have not yet asked
anyone to take them.
Taking iodine tablets
in the absence of
iodine radiation is
actually bad for you.
You need to match iodine,
taking iodine to the exposure.
I understand but, from today's
point of view was the
exposure given at that time in
most affected areas or not?
You know, again, that's
almost 5 years ago and I
can't remember the process
from day to day and
certainly we would have
adapted our recommendations
based on the information
we were getting.
But there are these
guidelines and
it's written in here you should
take iodine within the first 6
hours after nuclear accident.
It's in here and it's also clear
that it was not
given in Fukushima,
it's also a fact,
it's not something
you have to look
up, it's obvious.
Ok.
I really think you are wasting
your time on this topic.
And that we should move
on to other topics
because I only have
until 12 o'clock.
Is it that you can't
say something
critical about the
Japanese government?
I... WHO, work on
the basis of facts
and if I don't have the facts
and the information
at my fingertips
I am not going to speculate.
Yeah, but in general
is it possible
for WHO to criticise nations?
I'm not going to say
anything more about
this, why should I
say anything more.
No this was a general question,
not in relation to Fukushima.
Well let's move on
to another topic.
Ok.
(music)
(inaudible)
Yeah yeah the speaker.
Well I know what is
his role, not to
answer anything, it's to around,
around, around, around...
This is the problem. One of the
serious problems of
WHO is the media
policing because
they are trying to
avoid any conflict,
to avoid anything.
So they are not talking openly
and transparently to the people.
So what struck me was that your
questions are odd
and out of date.
No it's a great organisation,
I'm the spokesperson
for the organisation I do
this day in and day out.
I love the job.
Is it getting more difficult
now that WHO has lost trust?
Who says WHO has lost trust?
Is that you?
(music)
(road noise)
I am Alison Katz,
I worked for the
World Health
Organisation myself for
18 years and since
I have left I have
been involved in independent WHO
which works in the area
of radiation and health
and we have been in front of the
World Health Organisation
headquarters in Geneva for
7 years now and it is a
permanent peaceful protest.
So that the world understands
that somebody is witnessing
the victims of radiation which
includes almost everybody.
The Japanese people are
already talking and they
are reporting very serious
health effects in
children that the WHO
is ignoring. It's not
talking about, doesn't
mention in it's report.
You know.
At the time of Chernobyl, the
people couldn't talk freely.
(music)
The New York Academy of Science
book, this one, comes up
with an estimate of 985,000
deaths, that is worldwide,
between 1986 and 2004. And
of course that makes a
dramatic contrast with what
the establishment says,
which is still
around 50 deaths and
possibly 4000 cancers
as a final total.
The other major omission
is that the WHO has never
considered anything except
cancer as a health effect.
(speaking foreign language)
(aeroplane noise)
Since January we know that
there are other diseases
What other diseases?
Unfortunately, um yeah...
for example...
Cardiovascular
diseases, infertility,
thyroid diseases
other than cancer.
There's a book, maybe
you heard about
it, of the Academy of Science.
Which was reputed by
the New York Academy
of Sciences because
it's so unsound.
But that's not true.
- Yes.
If you read the statement
from the New York Academy
of Sciences, in 2011 or 12
they repudiated the book.
Let me give you this.
This is from the
journal of radiology
and it's a review of the New
York Academy of
Science's book which
talks about all the flaws in it.
Ok, ok.
So I should also
give you something.
A book review by
independent WHO.
Yeah
- Yeah
Ok we read this and
then we meet again.
(phone dialing)
Hello, this is Lilian Franck.
What does it mean exactly
that the New York
Academy of Science repudiate
the Chernobyl book.
The editor tells me that the
Academy never
repudiated the book.
He permits me to
record the phone call,
but later he withdraws
his permission.
Isn't he able to
speak freely either?
When I try to confront
the WHO press spokesman
with the statement, he
doesn't take my calls.
So he doesn't take it.
Do you wanna try with
my Italian number?
Why not, thanks!
Like mine? Ah yeah.
Hi Gregory, this is
Lilian, good to hear you.
The press spokesman refuses
to give me another interview.
I'm good and you?
He says he's spent enough
time with me already.
I was wondering whether
we could meet again for
another interview.
No? Why not?!
Perhaps the publisher of the
Chernobyl book can help me.
(dialing tone)
(Sherman) Good morning
Good morning!
The original contact person at
the New York Academy of Sciences
agreed to publish the book.
And then there was
a big to-do at the
New York Academy
and they did not
think was a good idea.
And I suspect that they
were pressured by the
nuclear industry but I
don't know for sure.
(music)
How big is the influence
of the nuclear industry?
Here at home, nuclear
power is also an
important part of our
own energy future.
As you know I'm a big
believer in Nuclear power.
(typing)
The international Atomic
Energy Agency, IAEA,
wants to promote the safe and
peaceful use of atomic energy.
Nuclear power will remain an
important and viable option
for many countries as a clean
and stable source of energy.
(muffled voices)
The WHO is concerned
with health.
These are different priorities
but the two organisations are
working closely together.
For example, together with other
UN organisations they are
compiling a report about the
health consequences
of Chernobyl.
I'm a critic of WHO and they
tended not to invite critics
for their two reports, one on
health one on the environment.
What kind of people are these?
Do you know some of them or?
Yes I know most of them.
There's certainly a good bunch.
But the trouble is that they are
outweighed by the
scientists from IAEA.
And erm...
because they're the
ones who ruled
the roost, who
dictated the agenda.
The thing was that
there would be a
whole series of
informal meetings
going on between WHO
and IAEI at quite
senior levels, very
senior levels.
And they would predetermine
what line they would take.
That's why they had a
WHO / IAEI meeting
in Vienna in 2005,
in October 2005
To put the line
across, this is it,
this is what we're going to do.
The trouble was that many, many
people came opposed to all this.
(music)
Maria Neira works at the WHO.
She is responsible
for the risks of
radioactive contamination.
I deliberately make an
appointment to see her in
Paris. The press department
won't get in the way here.
To make sure she agrees to
see me, I don't tell her
what I want to talk about
until we first meet.
(Neira) It's like
Chernobyl, there is a book
saying that there have
been 1 million deaths that
the WHO is hiding, how
can you have 1 million
deaths, come on. Seriously,
1 million deaths.
And then the humanity will
not, I mean 1 million.
Yeah but this is because
they were looking
at the broader part of
the world population.
Yeah but 1 million
deaths, you think
that you can hide
1 million deaths?
Yeah but do you seriously think
Which records, do you
have mortality records?
How can you seriously
believe that
Chernobyl accident
caused 50 deaths.
No we didn't say that.
But it's still on
the WHO website!
(music)
So we wrote the other report
and the initials are
TORCH which is torch.
We said right away that
we expected somewhere
between 30 and 60,000
altogether worldwide
future deaths.
Because the plume from Chernobyl
went right round the world.
The northern hemisphere.
And whilst the
concentrations were low,
far, far away, it doesn't matter
because there were many,
many millions of people.
There are 600 million
people in Europe alone
and they were all affected.
Politicians who
do not learn from
history are doomed to repeat it.
The purpose of this report
was looking at the exposure
and the doses to which
people have been exposed.
What is the risk
that we can expect
and I think this is more human
than trying to predict how many
people will die from cancer.
The other reason why we were
not using cancer mortality
figures but rather incidents
is because as you know
most of the cancers can
now be treated and
therefore there was no
mortality associated.
I don't know whether you
have noticed but our
health risk assessment is
only with the log of WHO.
But I mean if once heard of
the experts belonged to IAEA.
This is kind of anticipating
that those experts
from IAEA are not on
the best of their
science, which is the
case, I don't think
they were there to
represent any interest.
I mean it was criticised
that there was
no oncologist or
no radiobiologist
also no scientist who
published critical
articles on health effect
of nuclear energy.
But when you need
to do a scientific
report, it's not a question of
bringing an activist
from the left
wing, an activist
from the right wing.
It's a question of science.
What's happened is that there
are groups outside that
they want to use those accidents
to say you see nuclear
energy is bad, is dangerous,
why we don't stop the
use of nuclear energy, which
is a different cause.
Do you think it could
also be the other
way round, that
nuclear industry...
tries to not to tell the whole
truth about the health impacts.
Absolutely, I have
no doubt for sure.
(ambient sounds)
(eerie sound)
Of course we are not
perfect but we are there
and we are doing the
best we can and with
the support of everybody
who recognises that
there is a need for a
global public health
very heavy institution, heavy
in the good sense, with weight,
institution, powerful
institution,
it will be the best
for all of us.
And I will fight for
that for the rest of
my life. I'm a convinced
public health
officer and I think
my record accredits
that if we need to
fight, I am not afraid.
A scientist in the United
States this past spring
made the observation that
this generation of children
is the first generation
in modern history that
is not going to be as
healthy as their parents.
That should not be.
What do I do with
this knowledge now?
Go out on the streets
together with
independent WHO, or
just go home again?
First I have to speak to
the Director General.
(dialing tone)
I was talking to
Margaret Chan for an
interview during World
Health Assembly.
She said yes she would
like to give it
but I didn't get
any answer so far.
I'm just concerned about WHO
and it's image in the film.
It's really important that I
could talk to Margaret Chan.
You know I'm very flexible, it
doesn't have to take long time.
(voice on phone) It's
not about time it's
about her physically
being in the office.
Hello, this is Lilian.
Do you think we can do
the interview tomorrow?
(man on phone) Mm probably not.
(ambient sounds and soft music)
The queue for demands
for her is so long
that you'd be waiting
another 5 years.
(soft music)
Am I at the end now?
Is there any real end?
Margaret Chan carries on.
But I don't know I mean
she is very patient to
stay there because in
my place I was goodbye.
You are destroying, this
is your business, you
are... the organisation,
I'm not going to help.
And probably at
one point she has
to realise that she is helping
and serving the interest of the
people giving funds to WHO.
(music)
So last summer, an editor
from the WHO's official
journal world health
bulletin invited me to write
an editorial on psychological
impact of the Fukushima
accident on evacuees and
I agreed to do that.
It was rejected on
the grounds that
it contained criticism
of WHO and the
Japanese authorities.
Well of course it
did. I mean there
were things wrong.
I think the editors words were:
'the world health bulletin will
not be a platform for such
criticism, no matter how valid'.
(music)
So this year will
you go to the World
health assembly to
the UN building?
No.
I'm still not allowed in.
Why?
Because apparently I asked
too many disobliging
questions, they won't
renew my accreditation.
I've annoyed people.
And I have written about things
they don't want me
to write about.
(music)
Why did you stop working at WHO?
I was fired.
I was a staff association
representative and we organised
the first, it wasn't even a
strike it was a go-slow in 2005
and it was to protest against
the levels of corruption
in WHO. Nepotism, mainly
nepotism. Corruption.
And of course they
were absolutely
horrified, so it was a huge
success, but three weeks after
that, my post was abolished.
Right, it's over to
you folks, who'd
like to start the
round of questions?
Is it on? Can you hear me?
Yeah, ok.
Lilian Franck, OVALmedia.
It's a question to Dr. Chan.
We just learnt that refugee
health and climate change are
huge global health challenges.
But I'm asking myself
how can we meet
them if WHO is
constantly losing power.
Important donor nations,
they want a weak WHO, one
could even compare WHO
to Titanic I would say.
So isn't it your
responsibility Dr. Chan
to step down before the
end of your second
term in order to signal
to the world that
your organisation,
you ship is sinking.
You ask an excellent question.
If I tell you
WHO as an organisation,
only 30 percent
of my budget is
predictable funds.
Other 70 percent I
have to take a hat and
go around to world
to beg for money.
And when they give us the
money they are highly
linked to their preferences,
what they like.
It may not be the priority
of WHO so if we do not solve
this, you know, we are not going
to be as great as we were.
(music)
