China will fill this gap as well: https://www.hematologyadvisor.com/news/china-donates-500m-to...
China is likely to use its influence to push "TCM" further into the narrative. Not that the US national health agenda is exemplary in its use of evidence and scientific knowledge at the moment either.
Sad all round.
(Edit - downvoters, do you not agree that this is likely, or do you think that it's OK?
If the former, it's been done before so it seems very likely to me. If the latter then I have to say I agree with this take in scientific american - "To include TCM in the ICD is an egregious lapse in evidence-based thinking and practice."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...)
Traditional Chinese Medicine and International Classification of Diseases - for people who didn't click the link
I haven't seen them push it internationally. There's just occasionally official support for highly questionable studies claiming that it was real all along.
Edit: It's dumber and worse than I thought.
They have previously pressured the WHO to include TCM remedies in its literature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...
It's very stupid, but I don't think it's going to have any international effect outside of countries like Singapore and Taiwan with signifiant populations of highly superstitious older ethnic Chinese. It's not like TCM doctors are being sent to Africa.
You said it, so I had to look it up:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/10/chinese-traditiona...
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3326972/ho...
https://rhinos.org/tough-issues/promotion-of-traditional-chi...
It actually is like they're sending TCM doctors to Africa!
I had no idea...
Thanks, we live in an ever stupider world than I thought. I do wonder about the prevalence and traction, and whether it's mostly ingredient sourcing rather than "treating" locals.
According to those sources above, they're not only 'treating' locals but starting up training centres. It seems to be about exporting culture as well as opening up new markets for TCM 'pharmaceutical' companies.
No doubt ingredient sourcing is in the mix too.
Why would they do that? Genuinely makes 0 sense to me. Even India with its nationalist authoritarian govt doesn't push Ayurveda on the global stage (for domestic customers though it's obv a big business whose magnates have close ties w the govt)
Because they've done it before?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...
1. What does nationalism and authoritarianism have to do with anything? By gratuitously sticking these words into your argument you undermine your credibility as a neutral commentator.
2. Even if they didn't push it, the west has been stealing ("appropriating" in liberal speak) Ayurvedic remedies for years. Take turmeric for example. The GoI had to sue to keep turmeric patent free.
1. Because both states are nationalist and authoritarian, and both states have an alternative medicine practice that's culturally tied to them. It's a pretty good analogy imo, and it helps to understand how such a state would act by having an anlogue to compare it to
2. Ayurvedic and TCM largely refers to those things which haven't undergone clinical trials to understand their efficacy as prescribed medicines. Anything from that sphere which is clinically proven to work and is dispensed as prescription medicine just becomes part of medicine. It's not about "stealing" or whatever, it's about whether people should be given proven effective medicines or hopefully effective medicines, the former being what we should promote globally
They own WHO as COVID amply demonstrated. Now they can keep it, which is a big pity but don't pretend it was sunshine and roses beforehand.
In case you're one of they many people here who have an inexplicable reverence for China, i'll be clear that China gaining more influence in international affairs is imo Not A Good Thing.
I mean, it’s “Not A Good Thing” for the US. Chinese people are proud of their accomplishments in the past couple of decades, and deservedly so. Now they can do the whole realpolitiks as well.
Sure, I don’t agree with lots of their stuff, but I’d rather a guy who doesn’t flip flop his mind every 4 years.
More evidence that Carney’s speech marks the end of American global “leadership”
I didn't need Carney's speech to mark that, Jan 6 2025 was the date.
I'd posit that Jan 20 2017 marked the beginning of the end.
It's a daily challenge to keep track and not spiral into despair. It's not just that one man, it's that so many citizens love him. It truly boggles the mind.
It does indeed, and I agree that is a good alternative date but a lot of people still had the excuse that they did not know how bad it could get. For the re-run they knew exactly what to expect and still voted for it.
It can always get worse, and it has.
Prediction: it will get worse still.
Thank god, we’re tired of funding the world’s defense, research, prescription drugs, etc. I know I’ll be downvoted but I’m saying this as a liberal Democrat. Something had to break.
For a more focused point, sticking to just one here:
> we’re tired of funding the world’s defense
Reads like "The outrageously high R&D costs of modern weapons systems are being subsidized across many customers. This must end immediately!"
What other business wants fewer customers to spread R&D across, or less revenue from fewer units sold?
Are we instead discussing how much the US spends internally on defence, then exports the largest military in the world to protect the country and her interests? Because not only is that an example of America choosing to spend her own money instead of being coerced by other nations, but the guy that just ran a snatch'n'grab on a foreign leader was enabled by that same policy. Forgive my disbelief that he'll dismantle that system any time soon.
"funding the world’s defense" - where do you think that money goes?
You can say you're 'x' while acting as 'y'.
Thanks for your feedback. I didn’t vote for this administration, I think they’re idiots, and yet I still get blamed for them. It’s exhausting.
I suppose we'll see in the coming years whether funding the world's institutions gave us more back than we spent or not
Not downvoting, but boy is this off the mark. America was the only country to invoke Article 5 of NATO. America has benefited greatly from brain drain, what you call "funding the world's research". Pharma is something like the 7th or 8th largest export for the US.
Military misadventures in the Middle East, trickle up economics, prioritizing corporate profits over things like low cost healthcare, good jobs, or a solid industrial base... These are all products of American culture and politics, not imposed by any other country.
Appreciate your response. I’m just frustrated, because while I vote one way (in California ) for liberal policies, the rest of the country seems to vote another. Americans are a varied group and we all get lumped together with these idiots. I thought it was stupid when we dismantled USAID but I’m powerless to stop it.
I get the frustration. I hope though that the opinion of the people who matter the most - i.e., your friends and family, and not random Internet strangers - will be based on who you are as a person, not on your identity as an American. Don't worry so much about the noise on social media, it's part of what got us into this mess in the first place.
At the same time, there are things you can do besides voting. Maybe you already know or do these things, but just putting it out there... You can call your representatives (and they might actually listen, if you're a Democrat in California), you can donate to candidates in other races if you have the means (there are probably going to be some pretty consequential senate races this year), you can join a protest (peacefully, and especially if you don't have any dependents).... And who knows, maybe none of these things will make a difference in the end, but I think the bottom line is that if you truly care about some of these things that are happening right now in the US, it's better to find ways to act on your convictions than to stay frustrated and fume online.
Just my 2 cents.
The military is basically a jobs program. We do it because it pumps money into the economy and gives us our own little socialism. It's our little New Deal kingdom.
"funding the world's defence' - this kind of thinking is whats turning everyone against you. Ask the venezeulans, iraqis, iranians, nicuaraguans, vietnamese, afghanis, panamains, etc if they want your "world defence".
I mean, I like living in the country that everyone wants to come to for an education and work. We're giving that up.
Did you vote for this mess? I sure didn’t, I live in a state with almost 50 million people and feel like we’re powerless to stop this nonsense.
Why do Americans think that? It's very self centered. You will be surprised by how much Canada spends around the world. For example of an important project, Canada paid UNicef $850k to combat open defecation in Ghana.
I’m happy to spend on supporting the poor worldwide; I’m just tired of the US playing team America world police. I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.
> US playing team America world police
I always find it so weird to assume such things are done out of good heart. The US has always been dependent on their ability of world wide power projection, because that's a level that always works. Through 'America first', in the next years the US will experience a decline of beneficial trade deals and US-interest friendly foreign politics. It's net negative for everybody except China and Russia to some degree.
> I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.
That's not about foreign politics though. If you didn't want Billionaires to get richer, you shouldn't vote for one of them being the president.
I didn’t.
no offense but the US spent about a billion on the WHO. That's a lot of influence for chump change. US defense sits at only 3% of GDP compared to 8% during the height of the cold war.
The argument always seems to be that the US is getting these rough deals, but objectively what it has spent the last few years be it in terms of soft power for organizations like this or in weapons to Ukraine, a few decades ago people would have opened champagne bottles getting that much bang for your buck.
This is British "the EU is stealing your NHS money" stuff, like it doesn't work at a basic level of arithmetics. What's driving spending in the US is entitlements, literally a straight line up
No offense taken. Clearly I’ve already upset a lot of people though. It’s not just the WHO, which is “only” 1 billion apparently.
I get that it all adds up, but you're railing against 0.1% of a budget that's over a trillion dollars. Not only do household and national budgets work differently, the numbers are also so much larger that they give a sense of vertigo instead of understanding. If we compare for 0.1% of your budget, would you stress over that amount? Because I know I'm not about to panic over spending $100 annually for a safer, healthier, and more stable world
I feel like there’s a logical fallacy in your response. I’m down for cutting significantly more than $1 billion. Halving the defense department budget would be a good start.
In which case we disagree fundamentally on America's place in the world, and how best to lead - and that's okay. We can politely disagree (on this), and neither of us has to be an asshole, because neither view is objectively wrong
I applaud the consistency you put on display regarding the US budget though, and I gotta say you view (on this) probably should count more than mine - I'm a Canadian citizen, not American
Didn't downvote you, not upset, but you definitely overstepped with your use of "we".
And even if you think this is the right move, it's important to acknowledge that it's for all the wrong reasons.
The same theater as in his first term. Now we would like to know who Bubba was and why a president can enrich himself by $9.7 billion:
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/trump-family-corruption...
Anything to keep the news cycles engaged in busywork.
I don't comment very often on political posts and this is borderline off topic but if Trump had handled the pandemic by following the science we were putting to work and championed doing the best we could for saving lives he would have won his second term.
Instead we have been sold to someone(s) that only want to see us divided internally and externally expanding our isolationist stances.
It just feels like everything is taking polarization to the extreme.
I feel really terrible imagining what my daughter will inherit from all of this.
> championed doing the best we could for saving lives he would have won his second term
No one appreciates the hard work when lives are saved. Let some people die and you can rile your base
1000%, crazy to look back on spring and summer of 2020 and if he just played it cool and not rocked the boat so much, no doubt he would have been reelected. Not that I agree with many of his policies; if anything it speaks more to his incompetence and inability to remain calm than anything else.
Don't forget Trump had a hand in starting the pandemic.
Here's what we know: In 2014, Obama administration halted the so called "gain of function" research because of risk of laboratory accidents. In 2017, the Trump administration restarted this dangerous research. See links below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/white-house-to-cut-fun...
Excerpt: [Obama] White House announced Friday that it would temporarily halt all new funding for experiments that seek to study certain infectious agents by making them more dangerous. The White House said the moratorium decision had been made “following recent biosafety incidents at federal research facilities.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih...
Excerpt: [Trump administration] on Tuesday ended a moratorium imposed three years ago on funding research that alters germs to make them more lethal. Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.
So, Trump restarted the dangerous research that Obama had shut down. You may be thinking, what does that have to do with Covid? Covid started in Wuhan, China, right?
It turns out that the Trump administration, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), provided funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, an American non-profit organization focused on studying emerging diseases. The EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, provided funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China for researching bat coronaviruses. The rest is history.
Am I wrong or Trump was the one who initiated the first shutdowns. Trump was the one who said we'll have a vaccine quickly, etc.
What should he have done that he didn't do, in your opinion? Fwiw, it was the economic shock from COVID that caused this situation where he's come back to ruin our lives again. Any further disruption to the economy during COVID would have exacerbated that
It's less what should he have done, than what shouldn't he have done. Specifically, he pushed conspiracy theories, demonized his health experts, and touted ineffective cures, and ultimately cast doubt on the safety of the vaccines. All to pander to his base. He had a remarkable chance to build trust in government via a truly extraordinary vaccine rollout, to a crowd which is historically distrustful. Instead he squandered that goodwill on petty fights and self aggrandizement.
> What should he have done that he didn't do, in your opinion?
I’ll just run down the record and stop at the first obvious error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._federal_government_respon...
> One month after [March 16, 2020, when the administration first recommended social distancing], epidemiologists Britta Jewell and Nicholas Jewell estimated that, had social distancing policies been implemented just two weeks earlier, U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 might have been reduced by 90%.
So there’s a concrete thing he could have done differently.
> Any further disruption to the economy during COVID would have exacerbated that
More stringent restrictions done earlier may have shortened the duration of the economic impact, who knows, we can’t exactly observe those alternate timelines directly.
The administration had zero discipline on messaging and so nothing was done with any consistency. As you say, he was initially positive that a vaccine would arrive quickly; when it was available, he flipped and endorsed alternative treatments of all kinds, many of them harmful. Formerly a champion of Dr. Fauci, then later his worst detractor and chief prosecutor in the court of public opinion.
so what you’re saying is we needed just 2 more weeks to flatten the curve
And shut down the early warning system months before the outbreak, purely out of spite that it was supported by his predecessor: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/trump-scrapped...
And it was the scientists and doctors of the WHO, who denied the existence of Covid until after every country in the world had shut down. I thought covid denial was a bad thing, but you're still getting downvoted... In response to your last question i've got no idea. I don't have any confidence the vaunted scientists got it right back then either. Just look at the disasters inflicted on countries and states that imposed heavy handed and IMO largely unnecessary covid measures.
> And it was the scientists and doctors of the WHO, who denied the existence of Covid until after every country in the world had shut down.
Doesn’t line up with WHO’s record of events.
It's easy to say COVID measures were unnecessary when you live in a timeline where you were spared from the worst case scenario of an immediate global pandemic. The economic harm was huge, but we don't know what it would have been if we had not taken any protective measures and we didn't know back then either how dangerous the disease could be
One of the worst parts of the Trump presidencies has been the absolute non-stop onslaught of bad news. Every single day. Day after day. Absolute terrible news.
The bar is so low, but god I cannot wait until we have another president that I don't think about more than a few times a year.
If we just didn't have a president at all for a term it would be an improvement.
I once had someone argue that a point against Biden was that he wasn't omnipresent in daily life. It wasn't the 24/7 Joe Biden show. They somehow thought that the correct form of American politics is just truly nonstop antics from the White House.
It's like these people think they're watching WWE.
The current guy is nothing if not a documented professional wrestling fan
As someone not in the US, but who listens to a lot of UK and Australian news here in Australia, it is noticeable how often the words "Donald Trump" are the first things spoken in any given bulletin.
Can't imagine what it must be like on the inside, I am looking forward to that no longer being the case, one day.
I don't recall a single week of the Biden regime which didn't have some gaffe or the other.
Videos of him wandering around with his mouth open, and then being dragged back on track.
208 weeks of that? Really? And that's on par with this insanity?
Trump is Biden 2.0, but with even more hilarity.
He really isn't. Unless you are speaking specifically of neurological decline.
Yeah man, remember when Biden called people retards and piggy, used his position to make millions off memecoins, draped his mug and name over government institutions, bulldozed half the White House, wanted to take over multiple countries, sicced masked idiots on the poor, pulled out of the WHO, the list goes on.
Biden was the head of a quiet gang, Trump is just open kimono.
I prefer Trump. Much less hypocrisy.
I don't think it's bad that our elected officials tell us what they're doing. Yeah, it sucks when they're doing heinous shit like Trump, but it's awesome that Zohran Mamdani is doing what he can to tell New Yorkers about all the great stuff he's doing, whether it's fixing bike routes, funding universal child care, or undoing the corruption of the previous admin.
It's bad that Biden was silent. This enabled the mainstream media, which is captured by conservative oligarchs, to define Biden's presidency. There's going to be an onslaught of news either way, and it's already an uphill battle for anyone who isn't right wing to get a fair shake. So, you shouldn't let others make the news for you. Biden expanded overtime pay and oversaw a number of worker and consumer protections. It's bad that he wasn't tooting his own horn about this stuff!
Additionally, for America to ever return to being the shining example of democracy it claims to be, the next administration needs to very publicly make an example of the current administration. Americans, and the world, need to know that authoritarians have no place in America.
> the next administration needs to very publicly make an example of the current administration
There is no chance of that happening. Trump will pardon every single person in his administration and anyone else who carried water for him. The next President will say "we have to move on" and Trump himself will ride off into the sunset with the billions he made for himself and his family.
Mainstream media, including and especially the White House press corps, hated Biden. I don't think Biden was at fault, I think mainstream media, captured by oligarchs, didn't report on good news, which looks like silence from Biden.
You're giving Biden no agency in this situation when he was the freaking president of the USA. He could have done more if he wanted.
Some questions:
- why did the Trump administration decide to leave the WHO?
- what impact will this have?
- is this at all beneficial to other countries that aren't the US?
Another question.
Why did Covid cause every government to become authoritarian on the directions of the WHO which couldn't even, itself, verify what stance to hold authority on.
Simple. They didn't know how bad the virus could or could not get ahead of time before it went through several iterations of mutations and wide spread infections. It's the same reflex for boarding up the house, huddling up and waiting for the storm to pass. It could be a Category 5, or turn out to be a weaker Category 2, can't guarentee it ahead of time.
Long, exasperated, existential sigh
All bad news man. They are shredding international institutions that might criticize our elites when they do whatever they want, consequences be damned. It's probably true the Democrats wouldn't have done exactly this move, but they aren't going to roll it back either.
This has literally already happened under the first Trump term, and was rolled back under Biden, by Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/world/biden-restores-who-...
So, like, what exactly is the point of making up reasons to hate Democrats. Obviously it's all the rage on the left (as on the right) to do so, but fabrications from the left are no better than fabrications from the right.
That's true, I remembered that after I posted, but at the same time, I suspect that a lot of this round will be more permanent. At least in the former case, the US did not exit the institution (1 year notice required). In this case, there will be more than 1 year between presidential administrations. If Trump doesn't pay up our outstanding fees, it is possible a Democratic administration will use that to say we never really exited, but if it is formally done, I feel rather skeptical they will rejoin.
There is strong continuity on foreign policy between administrations.
You have to put this in context that Trump is also creating what appears to be an alternative venue to the UN with the "Board of Peace" which was originally a colonial authority to impose our will on Gaza, but its charter doesn't mention Gaza at all and talks about international conflict in general.
>There is strong continuity on foreign policy between administrations.
Again, I feel like you have to live in an alternate universe to think that there is much continuity on foreign policy between Trump and <insert Democrat here>. Or you have to be laser focused on one or two similarities and ignore the vast chasms of difference on everything else.
It's true that we are in an era of change, but the Republicans are like the "id" of U.S. elites. Both parties regularly destroy entire countries. The Democrats mostly followed the Republican line on COVID after about 6 months. They are lagging, but they follow along.
There are a number of places where there are superficial differences, and those differences are important to people of color, trans people, etc, but the Dems are always looking for reasons to make a right turn. They track the Republicans who actively move right and create a small space a relative distance from their position.
> There is strong continuity on foreign policy between administrations.
You realize we just kidnapped a head of state, we're currently repositioning strike forces around Iran, and we just caused NATO to reposition troops to Greenland to defend against imminent US invasion?
Can you please identify events that you see as "continuous" with these ones?
Biden did a genocide in Gaza and killed 800k+ Americans with COVID. He created the conditions for the invasion of Ukraine by refusing to exclude Ukraine from NATO and probably destroyed Nordstream 2. He toppled the Pakistani government. Obama toppled Libya and allowed Ghaddafi to be sodomized to death with a bayonet. He juiced the civil war in Syria in Operation Timber Sycamore.
The Democrats are better at dressing things up and making it look like they're the good guys when they do the same stuff.
We are in a reorientation of American policy. Trump isn't doing this without consent from our elites, the same people that fund the Democrats who suspiciously aren't fighting it.
Haha, thank you. Utterly deranged.
No need to be so aggressive about it lol, can just correct the parent poster. Personally I didn't know Biden rolled it back, and I just assumed it would only now take effect after having been 'in limbo'. :)
Maybe people need to have facts told to them aggressively to get them in the habit of not assuming things.
(Disclaimer: I have little interest in US party politicking, so this is nothing do with my view of the Trump administration.)
The problem with a lot of these UN bodies such as the WHO, UNESCO etc is that they do not have proper external scrutiny, and instead have become overarching institutions which pass down diktats from on high. Because they are supernational/global, they are difficult to argue with or hold to account. Yet these bodies have ever more influence over our supposedly democratic institutions and are even attempting to override them in some cases.
The WHO has no power to "override" "our supposedly democratic institutions"
It already did a few years ago and issued contradictory advice based on its Event 201 tabletop exercise in October 2019, which was implemented six months later. (Such as suggesting international commercial flights continue during a pandemic, while saying time outdoors should be limited.)
It has spent the entire 2020s trying to push through a global treaty allowing them to declare situations independently of national governments. The backlash has been huge, especially since this can have consequences going beyond healthcare.
Do you have any examples of how WHO has overridden the power of a supposedly democratic institution in mind, or are you just making a generically anti-establishment argument?
WHO is, like every scientific or humanitarian endeavor, imperfect. But the list of goods they've done in the world dwarves the list of failures.
Can you talk a bit more about situations where WHO or UNESCO have overridden a country's health system? As a US citizen I see WHO as 1) offering guidance and 2) funding programs in poorer countries' health systems.
UNESCO, well, I'm looking at its website and Wikipedia article now, and I don't understand what it does. (Or maybe it would be easier to list what it doesn't do, since even its list of sponsored institutions is mind-numbingly long.)
UNESCO claims to protect things of historical and cultural importance. Like good health, this sounds a noble goal in itself. In practice it is often more of a junket/gravy train, as are most of these NGOs.
The WHO has been trying to push through an international treaty since 2020 which would allow them to override national governments on health matters.
Which countries give up their sovereignty when they sign treaties?
> The problem with a lot of these UN bodies such as the WHO, UNESCO etc is that they do not have proper external scrutiny, and instead have become overarching institutions which pass down diktats from on high.
Any example of a diktat from on high which you think was highly negative? Afaik, these bodies typically just promote whatever is scientifically / economically / etc. the prevailing worldview
I think the WHO have a lot to answer for over the Covid debacle, international health cooperation is important but i don't care if WHO dies so another body can be built on it's ashes.
WHO like many other ngos is politicized and subverted by rogue states. It's about time to reject it. There is no alternative for now but keeping with current status quo is counter productive.
Why is this political stuff on Hacker News?
The administration is supported and buoyed by many companies and rich people in SV.
Besides that the general decline of the American Empire seems relevant enough for today's world.
Canadian. Go figure.
The voluntary rapid disassembly of the world’s largest superpower, which is home to most large tech companies, seems very relevant, even without the tech component. I mean how often do you get to witness something like this?
HN Guidelines allow for poltical posts if they're evidence of new interesting phenomenon. Complaining about a post just because it is about a political topic just pollutes the forum.
Just trying to help discourage irrelevant stories in one of the last remaining good tech forums on the net. Sorry if you disagree.
Tech is basically just a big political echochamber for the last decade. The camps have been built at the oasis for both sides. Sad.
This has been a long time in concept. Republican opposition to contraception, women's reproductive health issues, AIDS and like were Reagan era concerns and this coincided with uncovering decades long systematic waste and corrupt behaviour across UN agencies.
I do not like this outcome but surely nobody is surprised? The specific act took a year to enact. They had to announce the intent to withdraw back in 24/25.
This is politics. The impact on worldwide health will take a while to emerge but the impact on soft power will be clear if and when other WHO members pick up the slack.