WHO's Third-Hand (or Fourth-Hand) Statement on Douma

On April 11, 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued an influential statement on (what they described as) the "suspected chemical attack" in Douma, Syria, a suburb of Damascus. This statement was not based on their own knowledge nor did WHO make any attempt to verify any of the claims in their statement. Despite its caveats, the WHO statement was relied upon in the US "intelligence" assessment used to justify the subsequent US-UK-France air attack on Syria and has been widely cited in western media as authoritative. It is anything but.

The paragraphs of the WHO statement purporting to contain facts are shown below (my bold). (See here here for complete statement.)

WHO concerned about suspected chemical attacks in Syria
Statement
11 April 2018

WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.

....

"We should all be outraged at these horrific reports and images from Douma,” said Dr. Peter Salama, WHO Deputy Director- General for Emergency Preparedness and Response. “WHO demands immediate unhindered access to the area to provide care to those affected, to assess the health impacts, and to deliver a comprehensive public health response.”

Nowhere in its statement did WHO claim first-hand knowledge of events in Douma. It relied entirely on prior statements from undisclosed "Health Cluster partners", which, in the circumstances, appear to be the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS) and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM). In addition to their lack of first-hand knowledge, there are major additional issues in their reliance on SAMS and UOSSM for knowledge of April 7 events in Douma:

• on April 7, neither SAMS nor UOSSM had officials in Douma. As a result, neither of their statements (which I'll discuss individually in follow up posts) were first-hand either. At best, they were second-hand or even third-hand, with some key details relying entirely on information from jihadist (Jaish al-Islam) social media activists, rather than medical staff at Douma hospitals.
• both SAMS and UOSSM are extremely partisan. In Syria, they operate only in areas controlled by jihadists, including areas controlled by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda allies, but do not operate in areas controlled by the government.
• the SAMS statement was issued jointly with White Helmets, an organization suspected in many quarters of being allied with or affiliated with Al-Nusra, the Al Qaeda franchise in Syria.

The authority of the WHO statement is obviously diminished by its reliance on second- or third-hand information, originating not from neutral NGOs, but with NGOs which support jihadist factions advocating sharia law.

This social media version of Pass The Telephone went through one more iteration when the White House assessment cited the WHO assessment as follows:

The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a statement about its concern over suspected chemical attacks in Syria, noting that victims showed symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals.
...

The symptoms described in reporting from media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other open sources—such as the WHO—include miosis (constricted pupils), convulsions, and disruption to central nervous systems. These symptoms, in addition to the dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries reported, suggest that the regime also used sarin in its attacks on April 7.

Watch the pea here. By citing the WHO, which has no first hand knowledge, rather than the partisan Syrian-American Medical Society, for the supposed symptoms of the victims, the White House assessment claimed far more authority for the assertion than really existed. When one actually examines available videos and photos of patients at the Douma emergency ward on April 7, the supposed symptoms of chemical attack ("miosis (constricted pupils), convulsions, and disruption to central nervous systems"), as opposed to symptoms of smoke inhalation or ordinary bombing, are either non-existent or contradicted.

The twisting of the WHO statement was not limited to the White House assessment, but occurred in almost every media citation. Consider, for example, the following assertion in the National Post:

Believe Robert Fisk and your conscience will not trouble you, and you won’t have to believe the World Health Organization, the Syria Violations Documentation Centre or the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations [UOSSM]. This is what they say: Bombs were dropped at two locations in Douma. Within hours, more than 500 people were exhibiting symptoms consistent with suffocation by poison gas. At least 42 people died.

Insofar as this statement purports to be a characterization of the WHO statement, it fails. As noted above, the WHO itself did not claim first-hand knowledge of the events and did not conduct any due diligence to verify claims by SAMS and/or UOSSM.

While the reports from Douma were undoubtedly worrying for WHO, the incident illustrates the dangers of a respected authority weighing in on an issue without any due diligence. While WHO attached caveats to each of its statements, these caveats were disregarded in the White House assessment and media reports, thus attaching far more credibility and respectability to assertions about patient symptoms in Douma than was warranted. In subsequent posts, I'll individually analyse statements by UOSSM, SAMS and the Violations Documentation Center, showing that each of them, in turn, is far less reliable than represented in the media.