Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's evidence that the WHO is a political organization, and some of its recommendations, such as being against international travel bans, may be influenced by politics over public health.
>It's evidence that the WHO is a political organization ... Granted. > and some of its recommendations, such as being against international travel bans, may be influenced by politics over public health. This is the part that's not proven.
> American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
> When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
> The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.
Importantly, however:
> In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.