NYC Flushes $3.5M Down the Toilet: 4 Years Later, Park Bathroom Still in...
Make It Make SENSE: Iranian Television Aired THIS Tucker Carlson Segment As Pro-Iranian...
The Black Robed Regiment How Pastors Led the Fight for American Independence
HOOBOY: Jessica Tarlov Learns the HARD WAY You Don't Mess With Texas Trying...
Joe Scarborough's SAVE America Act Fit Was Hard to Watch
WOW: Newly Released CIA Docs Show the Biden Administration Declared WAR on Motherhood...
So... Extradition? Republic of Somaliland Drops Some CRAZY-DAMNING Receipts About Ilhan Om...
Judging From This Cover The Economist Is Trying to Sell Subscriptions to the...
Ric Grenell Posts the PERFECT 2-Word DIG at Dems Throwing Hissy Fit and...
Dogged House Dems Had Another Chance to Prove How Much They Oppose Deportations...
Megyn Kelly Ditches the Last Shred of Sanity We Hoped She Had Left...
Here's a Shot/Chaser Starring Kathy Hochul Telling Certain New Yorkers to Get Out...
WOOF: Yale Prof Tim Snyder SCHOOLED on Basic Economics After He Claims 'Migrants...
Dem Sen. Warnock Makes an Accidental Pitch for the SAVE Act Before Claiming...
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Has the Last Word About a Fresh Boondoggle in...

Lancet editor launches Twitter tirade against WHO

Last night, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations re-tweeted a number of tweets from outspoken editor of the Lancet Richard Horton. The Lancet is one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals and Horton, as its editor, carries a great deal of cachet on the subject of health and disease. His tweets were very critical of the World Health Organization, which he called “corrupt” and the Global Fund, which he said is “dying”.

Advertisement

Journalist Jaclyn Schiff collected the tweets and added some context, along with a few explanations of the players involved. Horton’s online tirade is important because the WHO is the public health arm of the United Nations and the United States pours a great deal of money into it (the WHO budget for 2011 was nearly $4 billion). If the organization has become too sclerotic and corrupt to do its job, should we continue to fund it as if it were competently run and getting the results we desire? If we do not, then what, if anything, should take its place?

 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos