March 2005 Latest amendment on
Global crisis
of communicable animal diseases’ monitoring and surveillance: less information
on their real occurrence status than before computer era = facilitating infection/pathogen long-distance spreading
through international trade
V.Kouba
Formerly: Animal Health Officer
(Veterinary Intelligence), Senior Officer (Veterinary Services) and Chief,
Animal Health Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
Editor-in-Chief, FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook; Informatics Expert, OIE; Czechoslovak
Chief Epizootiologist; Professor of Epizootiology, Brno University of
Veterinary Science;
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction
2. General
principles of epizootiological monitoring and surveillance
3. Short
history of global animal health/disease information system
4. Serious
gaps in the list of internationally reportable diseases
5. Serious
gaps in operational reporting of communicable disease cases
6. OIE
deliberate extreme reduction of regular reporting on animal disease occurrence in exporting
countries
7. OIE
deliberate abolition of regular reporting on animal disease import cases
avoiding the analysis of disease spread through international trade
8. Zero or
minimal knowledge on animal diseases’ occurrence in exporting countries
9. Zero or
minimal reliable data for objective
disease situation analysis and import risk assessment
10. Zero
or minimal information on the frequency
and types of disease investigations in
exporting countries
11. OIE abolition
of software facilitating analyses of animal health/disease situation for
international trade
12. New OIE system WAHID provides
much less of useful professional information on animal infection occurrence than
before computer era
13. New OIE World Animal Health yearbooks provide much less of useful professional
information on animal infection occurrence than before computer era
14. Conclusion
1. Introduction
1.1 For any effective
preventive and control animal health programmes as well as for innocuous trade
in animals and animal products there is necessary to have available reliable
data on disease’s occurrence, control methods and influencing factors. The same
is valid for international programmes and trade. The collection, collation
and publication of national disease occurrence data at global level started in
1957 by the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook Information System under the
responsibility of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
1.2 From 1996 the collection
and publication of these data has been the responsibility of the OIE only, i.e.
outside of the United Nations. The OIE assisted by the FAO unfortunately
abolished previous satisfactory global animal health information system as
follow-up of the WTO/SPS to “facilitate trade” at the expense of importing
countries’ animal and human health. Instead to provide more and in more details
information the “new” system has been providing less information on
internationally reportable diseases than before and thus contributes to
disease globalization. Instead to facilitate international trade through
significantly improving sanitary quality in exporting countries and better
information of importing countries, the WTO and OIE started facilitating the trade in animals and animal
products through reducing sanitary requirements and global information system.
1.3 Actual global animal
disease monitoring and surveillance do not reflect the epizootiological reality
as it would be required for effective international preventive and control
measures. The knowledge of global epizootiological situation is absolutely not
sufficient and is becoming worse and worse thanks also to “new” policy of the
OIE working for the WTO instead for the protection of animal health in its
member countries. Global crisis of communicable diseases’ monitoring and
surveillance facilitating disease spreading through international trade
represents, together with the crisis of public veterinary service, important
components of global preventive veterinary medicine crisis deepening every day.
The tragedy is that international inter-governmental organizations responsible
for global animal health protection are obviously not interested in “recovery”
actions. Unfortunately, similar approach can be found at global
non-governmental organizations in veterinary medicine (including International
Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics of the World Veterinary
Association).
1.4 There is significant
difference between global animal health/disease information system and the
other ones. The first is used firstly for operational purposes (e.g. emergency
anti-epizootic actions and for the decisions on animal and animal products
import conditions) and the latter ones for post
factum statistical analyses only. Therefore, the animal health information
system must provide data the most precise, complete and reliable without any
delay. Unfortunately,
the actual OIE information system is neither precise, nor complete and nor
reliable!
1.5 The presented text is based
on critical analysis of actual regular OIE animal health information system
represented namely by the World Animal Health yearbook and HANDISTATUS II software.
The text was amended by commenting the OIE World Animal Health Information
Database (WAHID) as a component of new
OIE World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) introduced in 2006.
----------------------
Note:
The term “healthy animals” used in the text means
“animals free of communicable disease
pathogens” , i.e. epizootiologically healthy (not only clinically healthy).
2. General principles of
epizootiological monitoring and surveillance
2.1 Introduction
a) Epizootiological
situation and its development as well as the influencing factors are subjects
of monitoring and surveillance in order to obtain and maintain the knowledge
about the situation and to apply corresponding actions in time. Both types
are interrelated.
b) Epizootiological
monitoring and surveillance representing particular systems based on
investigation, information and analysis activities are described in
the “TEXTBOOK – Epizootiology Principle and Methods” included in the same website (http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/textbook.htm).
2.2 Epizootiological
monitoring
a) Monitoring means
to collect, process and use of ad hoc information and investigation results
obtained during the current veterinary services activities to assess the
specific health and diseases status.
b) Monitoring consists in operative investigations to decide
immediately about epizootiological measures, usually at local level or to prepare
further steps for the analysis and eventual animal health programme.
c) Monitoring involves regular (routine) or irregular veterinary inspections
in the field and slaughterhouses, laboratory investigations, veterinary
control in the disease foci, in quarantines, etc.
d) Monitoring not always is followed by concrete actions if the
disease is not of actual importance or has not necessary priority in
epizootiological strategy.
e) Initial monitoring represents the first phase of
epizootiological activities before starting active screening and animal health
programmes. It consists in obtaining the first information on specific disease
occurrence in the territory if the disease exists or not and in positive case
what is its approximate distribution and consequences. Initial monitoring has different forms where
the first investigations and ad hoc findings are complemented by the first
active "probes" to achieve better knowledge about the "new"
problem.
f) In the majority of known diseases initial monitoring represents still the only specific activity due to
the fact that there are not yet the conditions for starting complex and
effective programmes for their reduction, elimination and eradication.
g) Follow-up monitoring means the observation over a period of a
group, or initially defined population whose appropriate characteristics have
been assessed to observe changes in health status or health-related variables.
2.3 Epizootiological surveillance
a) Epizootiological
surveillance is a continuous process of
observing, investigating, analysing, evaluating and examining carefully
and constantly all development and pertinent alterations of the
epizootiological situation and factors influencing it. The purpose is to predict
and detect in time (i.e. at the onset) dangerous epizootic threatening to
worsen a given situation, to determine the state of epizootiological emergency,
and to immediately alert the services and organizations involved.
b) Surveillance particularly attempts to predict and detect, measure and
evaluate changes or trends for the worse in the behaviour of problem diseases, detect
and assess unexpected risks and determine critical moments and places.
c) Surveillance mainly scrutinizes quantitative changes for worse of
selected phenomena which have reached a critical point, producing a qualitative
change for the worse, i.e. deteriorating of epizootiological
situation. In essence, it is a
scrutinizing of certain events that is used to detect a change in animal
health/disease trend or distribution to modify investigative or control
measures and to identify promptly any emerging disease syndromes which would
require immediate response from a veterinary or a public health services.
d) Surveillance makes possible timely preparation, application and
eventual modification of epizootiological strategy, programmes and measures.
Surveillance provides the fundamental basis for epizootiological prognoses
and continuous upgrading of specific activities for a swift appropriate
reaction to changes in the animal population health situation.
e) Surveillance provides information required to meet international
reporting need and to support
declarations of disease status for trading purposes particularly if
exotic diseases involved.
f) Surveillance can be general,
covering the full etiological spectrum or
specific, covering particular etiological aspects, i.e. specific
animal health or disease processes.
As a rule, epizootiological
surveillance focuses on a limited number of carefully selected diseases
such as the exotic ones, the most dangerous ones and those under intensive
reduction, elimination or eradication programme, i.e. diseases having a major
economic and public health impact.
g) Calling attention for the new situation and threatening risks
(particularly the appearance, suspicion and possible outbreak of an exotic
disease) represents a major step forward in prediction and prevention.
h) Early warning system is a specific procedure to detect as
early as possible any worsening departure from usual or normally observed
frequency of dangerous animal health/disease phenomena. The warning system for
health hazards for people, animals,
environment can include also chemical contaminants.
i) Surveillance is a continuous process which depends on scientific
developments and field experience. On the other hand, it influences the theory
and practice through new finding and results as well as its demand for new
methods and supply of new ideas.
2.4 Among the objects of
international monitoring and surveillance belong also the major changes for the worse in
international trade policy (such as in the OIE Code) and in international
animals disease information system, sudden debilitation of public service
capacities mainly in exporting countries, etc. having negative influence on international
animal population health situation.
2.5 More information see on the
same website under “TEXTBOOK – Epizootiology Principle and Methods”, chapter 19
(Epizootiological information system) and chapter 21 (Epizootiological monitoring
and surveillance).
---------------------------------------
Note: How many authors so many definitions of the
surveillance and monitoring.
Examples:
“Surveillance – all regular activities aimed
at ascertaining the health status of a given population with the aim of early
detection and control of animal diseases of importance to national economies,
food security and trade.” “Monitoring – all activities at detecting changes in
the epidemiological parameters of a special disease.” “…the distinction between the two often becomes blurred.” in: Manual on livestock disease surveillance and
information systems, FAO Animal Health Manual, 8,
”Surveillance
of disease is the continuing scrutiny of all aspects of occurrence and spread
of a disease that are pertinent to effective control. Included are the
systematic collection and evaluation of: morbidity and mortality reports;
special reports of field investigations of epidemics and of individual cases;
isolation and identification of infectious agents by laboratories; data
concerning the availability; use and effects of vaccines and toxoids, immune
globulins, insecticides and other substances used in control; information
regarding immunity levels in segment of the population and other relevant
epidemiological data. A report summarizing the above data should be prepared
and distributed to all cooperating persons and others with a need to know the
results of the surveillance activities. The procedure applies to all
jurisdictional levels of public health
from local to international. Serological surveillance identifies
patterns of current and past infection using serological tests.” In: James Chin (Editor)
“Control of Communicable Disease Manual”, American Public Health Association,
17th edition, 2000, p. 577.
“Surveillance: Continuous analysis, interpretation, and
feedback of systematically collected data, generally using methods
distinguished by their practicality, uniformity, and rapidity rather than by
accuracy or completeness. By observing trends in time, place, and persons,
changes can be observed or anticipated and appropriate action, including
investigative or control measures, can be taken. Sources of data may relate
directly to disease or factor influencing disease.” In John M. Last (Editor) “A
Dictionary of Epidemiology”, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.163.
3. Short history of global animal health/disease information system
3.1 The backbone of the
United Nations global animal health information system was three language FAO/WHO/OIE Animal
Health Yearbook Programme
founded by Dr H.O. Konigshofer in 1956 as an integral component of the FAO
global information system. It was providing official information from
individual countries on animal diseases which were of international interest
due to their socio-economic and public health consequences and importance for
both international and domestic trade. The data were collected using a particular questionnaire
sent every autumn by Director General, FAO to all the member country governments
and to FAO Representatives and by Chief, Animal Health Service, FAO to all
Chief Veterinary Officers in the world together with necessary instructions.
Deadlines: sending filled out
yearbook questionnaires to FAO HQs, Rome by the end of February; editorial manual
processing (including about one thousand three language explanatory notes) and
sending final version for printing factory in Napoli by the end of May
following by the distribution at the beginning of
July. There were produced up to 6500
copies every year. The majority was distributed free of charge to all:
FAO, WHO and OIE member country governments, Chief Veterinary Officers,
veterinary faculties, FAO and WHO animal health reference laboratories and
collaborating centres, institutions of major international importance and
selected international specialists. The rest was left for FAO Distribution and
Sales Section.
3.2 The Chief-Editors of the
FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook being also responsible officers for FAO-UN
global animal health information system and surveillance were as follows: Drs
H. Konigshofer (Switzerland) during 1958-1977, V. Kouba (Czechoslovakia) during
1978-1984 and 1988, M. Bellver-Gallent (Spain) during 1985-1986 and 1990, L.
Velloso (Brazil) in 1988, P. Finelle (France) in 1989 and Dr V.R. Welte (Brazil) during 1991-1995.
3.3 FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook Programme belongs today only to the history. In 1996
after four decades of servicing satisfactorily to all the countries in the
world, the yearbook disappeared due to
not-easy-understandable reasons, i.e. without any scientific, logical and
practical justification and without any corresponding replacement or
improvement. Information on FAO animal health activities were modified and transferred to Internet pages. Global
animal health regular annual information system was left only with the OIE “World Animal
Health“ yearbook from 1985. OIE
has been publishing also monthly the “Bulletin de l’Office international des epizooties”
as well as “Disease information”, a weekly publication created in 1988 ; the
contents have been disseminated via the OIE website since 1996.
The standards for diagnostic
tests are of particular importance for international surveillance. First
complete edition in English of the “OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic
Tests and Vaccine” was published in 1989. This very useful publication was the
“baby” of Dr L. Blajan (
3.4 In 1981 was created OIE Working Group on Informatics and
Epidemiology (including also representatives of the FAO and WHO) which was later
until 1994 known as the Working Group on Animal Health Information Systems. It
was chaired by Dr P.M. Acha (
From 1995 the Chairmen were Dr
L.J. King (
*) Report
on the meeting of the OIE Working Group on Informatics and Epidemiology, Paris,
1-4 October 1996: Proposed changes to the 1997 FAO/OIE/WHO Animal Health
Questionnaire, ad 3) “The code for reporting disease
occurrence will be simplified as follows: The codes for
positive occurrence: + Reported or known to occur; +? Serological evidence and/or isolation of
causative agent, no clinical disease”.
Dr Jean Blancou, Director
General, OIE sent the author a letter dated 30 October 1998 explicating that it
was: "the result of discussions by eminent specialists on risk
analysis… to can standardize risk
assessment”. (From "+" ?). How can be standardized communicable disease
introduction risk assessment when every
case is different? How can be standardized the risk of non quantifiable
biological phenomena? How the risk can be standardized from one “+” ?
How the risk can be standardized when the “+” according to so called
“specialists” can mean one exceptional case in imported animal as well as
millions of cases ? Every primitive is able to distinguish that these
situations and risks are not the same. Because the “eminent specialists” were
not primitive, therefore the information reduction was made consciously and
deliberately to “facilitate trade” admitting to export non-healthy animals and
non-pathogen-free animal products from major exporting countries being not able
to control animal disease situation and to export diseases/pathogens-free
commodities. Therefore, also these “specialists” (some of them obviously had
been involved in the preparation of the antisanitary WTO/SPS) share the
responsibility for the criminal spreading and irreparable globalization of
animal diseases. Other secondary consequences consist in dismantelling of
government veterinary services, minimizing up to stopping active surveys and
diseases’ control and eradication measures in exporting countries “saving”
money and other resources related with animal export.
The above mentioned trick represents only one of the
OIE actions following the WTO/SPS explicitly requiring from the
importing countries the risk assessment in case of not accepting, due to the
lack of sanitary guarantee, the offered animal commodities by the exporting
countries. *) Fair trade principles such as the freedom to decide on the import
conditions is now exceptionally not valid only for animal trade ! This nonsense,
the common work of the WTO and the OIE, with catastrophic consequences has been
unknown even in the whole human history !
*)
WTO/SPS, Article 5 “Assessment of Risk
and Determination of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary
Protection”: 1. Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary
measures are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of
the risk to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk
assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations.”
*) More information on this
subject see in the chapters 6 and 7.
The mentioned Working Group,
after fulfilling its dirty “job”, disappeared during the nineties similarly as
the official OIE Informatics Experts. The previous effective collaboration of
all three intergovernmental organizations involved in animal health – FAO-WHO-OIE was stopped as well. The OIE
immediately after the WTO/SPS usurped global animal health information system
and therefore it is fully responsible for its consequences.
From that time the
significantly reduced and deformed global animal health information or better
no-information system on diseases’ occurrence has been applied up to day (i.e.
also in the “new” WAHID).
3.5 The OIE launched in April,
2006 so called “World Animal Health
Information Database” (WAHID) which is gradually replacing the HANDISTATUS II compiling data from 1996 to 2004. The new
system applies only more modern form of data computerization, but the professional
contents on diseases occurrence is not improved, i.e. it is practically the
same based on the non-informative symbol “+” not reflecting at all
epizootiological reality and characteristics. More comments in the chapter 11.
This new system represents a global irresponsible experiment without previous
testing how far it will be useful and feasible for member country governments’
decisions on anti-epizootic actions, namely on veterinary conditions for the
import of animals and their products to avoid the risk of diseases/pathogen
introduction.
3.6 The OIE was unable to
prepare in time the new HANDISTAT II (three year gap !) containing deliberately
much less information on diseases’ occurrence in the member countries than two
decades ago; to “facilitate trade” ? The OIE World Animal Health yearbook
suffers by extraordinary delay: data on previous
year are available not until the end of the actual year.
The
FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbooks having much more information on diseases’
occurrence than all OIE “new” computerized
systems and were being issued already at the beginning of next July in
spite of being processed manually.
The OIE World Animal Health
yearbook with data on animal disease situation in 2005 were not yet available,
even at CVO HQs, at the beginning of 2008
!!! (latest available WAH yearbook contains data from 2004 !). What this kind
of information (or better no-information) serves for ? For “facilitating”
international trade through blinding importing countries to be unable to
identify correctly the necessary import conditions ! This kind of information mess is absolutely
unknown in any other intergovernmental organization !
3.7 No
one of the “new” OIE global animal health information systems has been based on
logical analyses of the member country governments’ needs. These systems have not been targeted at particular objectives
and priorities for anti-epizootic decision-making at national (i.e. government)
level, on the other hand they have been overloaded by a mishmash
of less or no important data. All these systems have been lacking clear cut
definitions of the indicators describing epizootiological characteristics.
These systems have not been combining and
differentiating incidence and prevalence (not used at all by the OIE system
even in chronic mass spread diseases !?) for animal disease occurrence
characterization (any student of any veterinary university must
know the absolute difference of importance between new cases during a given period and the
situation at the end of a given period). The use of numeric data on disease new cases is absolutely confusing
the user due to representing only ad hoc reported new cases and not the incidence
reality which is usually many times higher. Example see in the paragraph 8.2..
For decision making on import conditions it
must be available also information on disease prevalence (at the end of the latest reporting period). The number
of ad hoc reported new cases can be minimal
or even zero but the disease can be widely spread up to ubiquitous prevalence.
Or the number of ad hoc reported new
cases can be high however, at the end of the period the prevalence can be zero
(e.g. after disease eradication).
It is obvious that the OIE
responsible officers have not good idea about member country governments` information
priority needs and about the principles of effective helpful international information
system. Or this case represents one of the OIE tricks how to facilitate trade confusing
importing countries minimizing
information on exporting country epizootiological situation.
3.8 More information see on the
same website in „History of global animal health information system of the
United Nations.“ (http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/UNinformatics.htm).
4. Serious gaps in the list of
internationally reportable diseases
4.1 Up to 1995 there were
following lists of animal diseases internationally reportable: 15 diseases of
the List A, 80 diseases of the List B
and 32 diseases of the List C, i.e. all together 127 diseases. Additionally
there were collected and published data on 23 zoonoses occurrence in human
population.
“List A means the List of transmissible diseases which
have the potential for very serious and rapid spread, irrespective of national
borders, which are of serious socio-economic or public health consequences and
which are of major importance for the international trade of animals and
animals products.
List B means the List of transmissible diseases which
are considered to be of socio-economic and/or public health importance within
countries and which are significant in the international trade of animals and
animal products.”
4.2 The OIE, after taking
over global animal health information system in 1996, following components
eliminated without any adequate analysis, testing, scientific justification,
convincing assessment of the
consequences as far particular disease spread risk was concerned and without
any replacement:
a) diseases of the List C
List C included
following diseases: Multiple species diseases: listeriosis, toxoplasmosis,
melioidosis, blackleg , botulism, other clostridial infections, other
pasteurelloses, actinomycosis, intestinal Salmonella infections, coccidiosis,
distomatosis (liver fluke) and filariasis. Cattle diseases: mucosal
disease/bovine virus diarrhoea, vibrionic dysentery and warble infestation.
Sheep and goat diseases: contagious pustular dermatitis, foot-rot, contagious
ophthalmia, enterotoxaemia, caseous lymphadenitis and sheep mange. Horse
diseases: equine coital exanthema, ulcerative lymphangitis, strangles and
salmonellosis (S. abortus equi).
Pig diseases: swine erysipelas. Poultry
diseases: infectious coryza, avian encephalomyelitis, avian spirochaetosis,
avian salmonellosis (excluding fowl typhoid and pullorum disease) and avian
leukosis. Dog and cat diseases: Canine distemper.
b) zoonoses
occurrence in human population *)
Rift Valley fever, anthrax,
echinococcosis-hydatidosis, leptospirosis, Q fever, rabies, screwworm
(Cochliomyia hominivorax), bovine tuberculosis, bovine cysticercosis, glanders,
Japanese encephalitis, Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis, porcine
cysticercosis, trichinellosis, avian chlamydiosis, tularaemia, leishmaniosis,
listeriosis, toxoplasmosis, swine erysipelas, brucellosis and salmonella
infections.
OIE later included, after my intervention, the
diseases of the List C into its website only but not in the World Animal Health
yearbooks. Diseases of the List C are not included even in the “OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and
Vaccine”. Reporting on zoonotic diseases in human population have not been
restored. The OIE is obviously not interested in the control of many important
diseases which could complicate more the export when importing countries will
require healthy animals and pathogen-free animal products.
--------------------------------------------
*) Due to the fact that the World Health Organization
did not monitor and disseminate information on zoonoses cases in human populations, it was officially
agreed between WHO and FAO that the programme of FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health
Yearbook would collect and publish this type of data dealing with human health.
In 1988 so called “FAO/WHO Experimental Table – Cases of animal diseases
(zoonoses) in human population (as officially reported to Ministry of Health)”
was introduced. This required Chief Veterinary Officers to contact national
Ministry of Health and collect relevant data to include them in the annual
questionnaire for the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook to be sent to FAO HQs.
The table was called deliberately “experimental” to avoid critical questions
why the global animal health information system was collecting and publishing
data on human zoonoses cases. Unfortunately, this extremely important table
disappeared together with the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook in 1996
without being replaced in following OIE global animal health information
system.
4.3 OIE abolished also regular annual
reporting system on the most important animal disease – foot-and-mouth disease -
according to its types: FMD A, FMD O, FAD C , FMD Asia 1, FMD SAT 1, FMD
SAT 2 and FMD SAT 3. Country reporting on each FMD type was before subdivided
into six animal species (bov, buf, ovi, cap, sui, others) and on FMD occurrence
when the type was not identified. OIE stopped requiring these 49 data on FMD occurrence as it was normal
during past decades. If we consider also the abolition of previous disease occurrence
epizootiological graduation (see chapter 6), what was offering for each type
and animal species more useful information, then the number of required FMD annual
data was reduced from about one hundred
to one only of very simple information !
4.4
Simultaneously with the disappearing of the mentioned diseases from global annual
information documents, the OIE abolished excellent information software
HandiSTATUS (see part 11). It is obvious that the member countries have
been getting less information than before ! Less information on diseases’
occurrence objectively has been favourable to the exporting countries
“facilitating disease export” in line of the “new” OIE policy.
4.5
Author’s several protests and proposals for global information system
improvement sent, as former Editor-in-Chief, FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook,
to Director Generals, OIE (Dr J. Blancou and Dr B. Vallat) and to the Head,
Information Department, OIE (Dr T. Chillaud) were left without any corrective
action. Even to correct professional nonsense did not merit any attention by “responsible”
officers.
In OIE World Animal Health “Index of diseases” can be
found absolute professional nonsense: „Klobouk’s disease – see Rinderpest“
instead of „Klobouk’s disease – see
Enterovirus encephalomyelitis“. The
author has been writing almost every year from 1997 to DG OIE asking to correct
this absurdity, however without any attention to this logical suggestion.
Similar fate have had all author’s several letters commenting that in OIE
disease lists the term Brucella
melitensis as scientific etiological entity has been missing. In spite to
keep current term "Brucella melitensis infection" avoiding
mixing it with B. abortus and B. suis, it was introduced by so called
“OIE experts” a confusing definition "Caprine and ovine brucellosis
(excluding B. ovis)" not
respecting international scientific etiological terminology.
4.6
Similar fate suffered author’s proposal to add in the list of internationally
reportable diseases other very important ones such as zoonotic salmonellosis in
mammals, plague, Ebola virus disease etc. Affected exporting countries are no
happy to include in global monitoring the diseases which are not well
controlled and which could complicate the trade.
As far as the refusal to include the plague is
concern, one of the explanation can provide following text: “Enzootic North American
foci, the largest in the world, are primarily found in the western and
southwestern USA (New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and
Wyoming), with plague-infected animals
detected as far north as Alberta
and British Columbia in Canada, and as far south as the state of Coahuila in
Mexico.” In R. Higgings: “Emerging and re-emerging bacterial zoonotic
diseases: bartonellosis, leptospirosis, Lyme borreliosis, plague”. Rev. sci.
tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2004,23 (2), page 576.
4.7
As the consequences of the OIE indifference to zoonotic salmonellosis in
mammals and very benevolent import conditions for poultry salmonelloses
(admitting export of affected poultry and missing conditions for poultry meat
export *) caused global underestimation of monitoring and surveillance of these
extraordinary important zoonoses. Very bad example of the OIE policy has
conduced to the absence of zoonotic salmonelloses occurrence data, preventive
and control measures, investigations of the agents respecting the cycle which
commences at the farm herd levels. Abattoir
inspection (HACCP system) cannot filtrate the products (meat) infected
by salmonellas and therefore they can be freely propagated through national and
international trade. Rapid distribution of imported meat makes impossible
postimport bacteriological investigation (preimport bacteriological
investigations is not carried out as well). Results: zoonotic salmonellosis
are being spread massively around the world without any effective specific anti-epizootic
actions.
*) See on the
same website in “Critical analysis of animal health code for international
trade” – chapter 2.10.2, article 3.4.1.9 and section 3.8.
4.8
Zoonotic salmonelloses “forgotten” in the OIE information system and OIE Code
for international trade represent the best example of mass spreading –
globalization of diseases without any international anti-epizootic action. This
kind of deliberately “facilitating trade”, thanks to very easy meat export
without necessary control of these diseases, is very favourable to major meat
exporting countries and very harmful to meat importing countries, in particular
to developing ones not having conditions for postimport bacteriological
control. According to antisanitary WTO/SPS and OIE Code the importing country,
in case to require salmonella-free products, e.g. poultry, pigs or
cattle meat, should elaborate and present to exporting country scientific
justified and convincing risk assessment documents following the absurd
methodology of the OIE Code. What a nonsense !
4.9
From the DG OIE Editorials, April 2004: “The
OIE paves the way for a new animal disease notification system. Resolution
passed by the International Committee and recommendations issued by the
Regional Commissions have instructed the OIE Central Bureau to establish a
single OIE list of notifiable terrestrial animal diseases to replace the
current Lists A and B. The aim is drawing up a single list is to be in line
with the terminology of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) of the
World Trade Organization, by classifying diseases as specific hazard and giving
listed diseases the same degree of importance in international trade.” This is further illustration of the OIE subordination
to the WTO. The terminology related to animal diseases should be in compliance
with veterinary terminology, science and needs instead of business terminology.
This is other nonsense
giving different diseases the same degree of importance for international
trade. The real intention is obviously the revision of the
diseases’ list to fit better to major exporting countries, i.e. to reduce
significantly the number of reportable diseases and thus to facilitate even
more the pathogen export through international trade than today. We can expect new trickery not
including among the hazards the majority of animal diseases and thus to open
the space for their spreading in importing countries. It is difficult to accept
that importing countries would agree with diseases’ introduction. However,
these countries are too weak to resist further swindle of OIE dominating by
major profiting exporting countries.
4.10
As follow-up the Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2004 as a “novelty” abolished
traditional logical disease classification according to their importance mixing
killing diseases (previous List A) with diseases of lower importance (previous List B). The
problem is not to concentrate the diseases according to individual animal
species, the problem is to avoid the ordination according disease importance.
The reason was to create deliberately the impression that the most dangerous
diseases are not so dangerous to facilitate animal export. This tricky change
is favourable only to exporting countries unable to eradicate some List A
diseases and to can export the animals and their products without a need to
eradicate these diseases ( as the blatant example can be mentioned African
swine fever introduced in 1978 in
Example: The most important disease – foot-and-mouth
disease – was always listed as the first one. Now it is located in 10th
place among 16 multiple species diseases. The most dangerous disease in pigs –
African swine fever is located in 6th
place among seven swine diseases (OIE Code 2006).
4.11 Other
“novelty” consists in elimination of paratuberculosis (chapter
2.2.6 =
empty page; it’s never happened) opening its export from countries
unable to control it. This step was preceded by Ministry of Agriculture of New
Zealand *) abolishing paratuberculosis as notifiable disease in 2000 and declaring it as “non hazard” in 2004 and by
its officer S.C.MacDiarmid becoming the same year Secretary-General of OIE Code
Commission. The change was not scientifically justified and without any assessment of consequences in importing
countries and even against the opinion of
-------------------------------------
*)
4.12 There is a serious contradiction regarding the
paratuberculosis. OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code in 2004 eliminated
paratuberculosis as no important for international trade and the
same year in the Rev. Sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., Vol. 23 (2), page 694 is
stressed increasing importance of paratuberculosis in connection with re-emerging
diseases. ! ?
4.13 Eliminating the paratuberculosis from the OIE Code
means its easier export without regard to its spread into importing countries
unable to avoid it, as before, when referring to the OIE Code.
Examples: Among the major
exporting countries without having the paratuberculosis as notifiable disease belong
according to the World Animal Health in 2003:
Recent mass import of the
paratuberculosis in
4.14 The above mentioned case of the paratuberculosis
symbolizes the concept and tendency of
WTO and OIE to reduce sanitary quality requirements for exporting
countries through the OIE Code and through limiting up to avoiding information
of importing countries on particular diseases. Instead of improving
sanitary situation in exporting countries through effective control and
eradication programmes there is being imposing the strategy close to “doing
nothing” thanks to minimizing quality requirements and reporting. What a
difference in comparison with all other trade commodities where the basic
policy is to reach the best possible quality of traded goods and the maximum possible information of
the importing sides!
This
case demonstrates once more how is the
OIE policy developing and confirms the decisive role of major exporting
countries and their “experts” in leading OIE posts. This case demonstrates the absence
of neutrality and democratic principles as well as the absence of respecting the interests of all other member
country governments.
4.15
Above mentioned antisanitary OIE
“novelty” indicates the intention of the OIE to reduce the number of
reportable diseases through elimination of those complicating export of
major exporting countries unable to guarantee healthy animals and pathogen-free
products. The result will be monitoring of less diseases than in the past
instead of providing more information as it was before WTO/SPS and on more
diseases. That time, even without computers, the countries were providing and receiving
much better and more information on disease situation in the world ! The
countries were accustomed to report required detailed data (as epizootiological
estimates based on professional analysis of all available relevant data) on
disease occurrence without any difficulty. The OIE has proved once again that
it is not more animal population health protection organization.
4.16
In the document “Emerging zoonoses and pathogens of public health concern”,
Rev. Sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., Vol. 23 (2), 2004 there are several
important zoonoses which are not included in the OIE global information system:
Ebola virosis, Nipah virosis, sever acute respiratory syndrome (SARS),
infection of Escherichia coli strain
O157:H7, Hanta virosis, Hendra virosis, monkeypox, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic
fever, bartonellosis, ehrlichiosis, Lyme borreliosis, plague etc..
4.17 Disease: non-notifiable =
no information = no investigations = no control = no eradication = no health
guarantee = free export of the disease = “happy” profiting exporting
country = “unhappy” suffering importing country getting
new problems usually difficult to solve even if the eradication is feasible,
what is usually unreal.
5. Serious gaps in operational
reporting of communicable disease cases
5.1
Operational information on
selected communicable diseases, mainly from the List A diseases, available on
OIE Internet pages represents the continuation of previous useful advising member countries through telegram. The OIE
established uniform reporting structure using computer on-line methods. The
operational data have proved to be welcome by the users.
5.2 The problem is that not all emergency
cases of international importance are reported to OIE HQs to can be
immediately disseminated through the OIE Internet. Often is reported only the
first case and not the follow-up cases and development. Sometimes, the data are
incomplete.
5.3 Particular difficulties
represent the results of epizootiological analysis identifying the source and
way of specific pathogen introduction and of further spread. They are very
often not discovered making difficult to
trace previous and following outbreaks to can effectively control the relevant
disease.
5.4 In the cases of detecting
imported pathogens the operational reports usually absence of pointing at
the country which exported the particular disease (not to offend it ?) and
thus other countries importing from the same exporting one are not alerted in
time to apply necessary protective measures.
5.5 No international
organization has published and trained
practical methodology for tracing the way of disease introduction and
thus to help animal population health protection against disease import.
Similar is the approach underestimating this phenomenon extremely important for
analyzing disease spreading through
international trade and for avoiding globalization of animal diseases.
5.6 Decisive role in
operational reporting of new cases of notifiable disease, in particular
emerging new ones, have the veterinarians of field, slaughterhouse and
laboratory services who usually are the first in contact with above mentioned
communicable diseases. Unfortunately very often these veterinarians are not
well prepared to be able to identify in time the suspicion if not the
diagnosis. Private veterinarians have usually only the chance ad hoc to detect the first
cases during their daily work while government veterinarians are mostly in
offices. Active survey to discover epizootiological
reality is organized only exceptionally (lack of legislation, staff,
material, money and diagnostic facilities, fear of detecting disease “complicating the life“
of animal owners, veterinarians, traders, exporters and authorities at local up
to national levels). Other reason is that cheapest (free-of-charge) survey is
no-survey. Overwhelming majority of veterinarians have not been properly
educated and trained for this kind of very demanding field work. Staff of so
called “epidemiology units” at managerial levels is very often trained only for
data processing and theoretical modelling of risk assessment using the
comupters and not for practical investigations of epizootiological situation and
for anti-epizootic field measures. Usually new emerging diseases,
re-emerging diseases and imported diseases are detected too late which is
reflected not only in following difficulties to control the disease but also in
late reporting to relevant international organizations and worldwide.
Examples:
In
5.7 Other serious problem of
international reporting is the fact that in very few countries are
notifiable all the diseases of the OIE information system. The obvious
reason is that not all these diseases are for individual countries of the same
importance and that national legal documents imposing citizen duties tend
towards the most concise text as possible. It is logical that numeric data on
diseases outside of the official duty to report are not available at central
veterinary administration and cannot be submitted to the OIE. However, the
major exporting countries are expected to have full coverage of internationally
reportable diseases (exception only for diseases without any importance for
specific exporting commodities). Non-notifiable disease = no information
available = no disease. These non-notifiable diseases contribute to open
even more the extraordinary great gap existing in the global information system
on animal diseases. This reality has serious impact on international trade
facilitating the introduction of non-pathogen free animals and their products
into importing countries.
Example:
According to OIE World Animal Health in 2003, pages 695-696
5.8
It is obvious that weak public veterinary services are unable to effectively
survey and monitor epizootiological situation when they have minimal
contact with national animal populations. Animal disease reporting by private
services is very often not reliable and not complete in particular as far as
disease cases in remote rural areas. The major concentration of private
veterinarians is in the cities where they have better chance of work (not
always in veterinary practice) and income while public service veterinarians
are concentrated also in the major cities spending a lot of time with office
paperwork. In
many countries the surveillance and control of animal population health/diseases
in rural areas is minimal or zero. Absurd privatization of
veterinary services imposed by international organizations such as WTO, WB,
IMF, etc. (supported by the OIE) understanding falsely the “health” as normal
“goods” where the main and only criterion is the profit regardless of
consequences for sanitary situation and consumer’s protection.
Example:
Prof.DVM,Ph.D Badarchiin Byambaa, Rector, Mongolian State University of
Agriculture, Ulan-Bator informed, at the occasion of his visit at Czech
Agriculture University, Prague on 5 April 2006, that in Mongolia has applied “absolute
privatization” of veterinary services. This can clarify e.g., the enormous
differences between reporting of Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) and of
Ministry of Agriculture: On page 629 of OIE World Animal Health 2004 the
CVO reported 17,928,000 heads of cattle while the ministry informed United
Nations about 2,200,000 head of cattle in the same year.
5.9
For any effective disease control,
elimination and eradication, the basic precondition is to discover all existing
outbreaks. This is possible only through active surveys supported by etiological
diagnosis. Therefore, there is so important to report the size (number) of
specific investigations and diagnostic methods used. The OIE has been refusing
to include these very important indicators in the global information system due
to major exporting countries’ fear
of unfolding that they are not
controlling (i.e. not knowing) properly or not at all the real national
veterinary sanitary situation. Reporting the truth = risk for having troubles
with the animal commodities export.
In
spite of repeatedly declaring by the DG OIE that all provisions and documents
are scientifically based, the OIE has never carried out international comparative studies
in space and time to select the most suitable, helpful and feasible methods
(e.g. reliability grade of reported number of disease cases, impact of the OIE
information system, disease control methods and their results, organization and
effectivity of veterinary services according to results, manpower working
norms, etc.).
6. OIE deliberate extreme
reduction of regular reporting on animal
disease occurrence in exporting countries
6.1 From
author’s letter to Dr Jean Blancou, Director
General, OIE dated
"In World Animal Health in 1997 to my surprise I found that the
"new" list of disease occurrence symbols was significantly reduced
which means the availability of much less
information needed for decision-making, in particular for risk
assessment when importing animals and their products, than before. The graduation symbols of disease occurrence
estimates suddenly disappeared after decades of practical application without
problems. I cannot see any scientific or practical justification.
Following occurrence symbols were deleted (in
comparison with previous years):
(+) Exceptional occurrence
+ Low
sporadic occurrence
++
Enzootic
+++ High occurrence
+.. Disease exists; distribution and
occurrence unknown
)(
Ubiquitous
!
Recognised in country for the first time
<=
Only in imported animals (quarantine).
All these symbols are replaced
by "+". This "new" symbol does not differentiate the
disease frequencies in the given country (e.g. it can mean the disease in one
animal only, or among imported animals only, or enzootically spread or
ubiquitous distribution, etc.).
The disease occurrence
(prevalence) value in the exporting country is the starting point for risk assessment
when importing animals and their products (see also OIE Code). The member
countries should obtain more and more detailed information than before starting
computer era and not less. My opinion about the list of the occurrence
symbols was expressed in my previous letter.
I suggest to keep the previous occurrence symbols. I learned from
your letter that the new annual questionnaire on animal health for 1998 will be
sent to the veterinary authorities of the member countries at the beginning of
1999. This is the chance to issue this
new questionnaire with the missing disease occurrence symbols !
According to my experience as former Chief-Editor of the FAO-OIE-WHO Animal
Health Yearbook I am convinced that there is still time to do it.
I would like to stress that we cannot avoid using symbols estimating the
grades of animal population health situation. In no country A and B
lists diseases are all obligatory notifiable. In no country exists country-wide
active surveillance system to detect a l
l specific foci of all OIE lists
diseases. This creates problem with the reliability and complexity of reported
numeric data. Therefore, the absolute numbers of officially reported
outbreaks/cases are usually lower or incomplete than in the reality.
V.
Kouba”
6.2 Instead of improving OIE statistical
information system to provide more and better information to member countries
in connection with new phase of international trade, previous system was
abolished and accepted its significant reduction to have much less
information for decision making then before processing data only manually!
This abolition was carried out unscrupulously without any previous analysis,
any scientific, practical and logical justification, any risk assessment of the
consequences and without any respect to
information needs for anti-epizootic programmes and for the decision on
import conditions. The previous satisfactory global information system was
deliberately destroyed to “facilitate trade” through minimizing information
on exporting country situation and thus “blinding” importing countries when
analyzing the risk of disease import. This act, which could be understood
as an international crime facilitating disease globalization, was not
any mistake. It is something incredible that, in the global information era providing
extraordinary technical conditions for information programmes’ fundamental
expansion, the OIE is irresponsibly reducing/eliminating the most important
professional data on animal disease occurrence.
6.3 The change started in 1996
at OIE HQs as one of WTO/SPS follow-up action:
“Report on the meeting of the OIE Working
group on informatics and epidemiology,
ad 3) The codes for reporting
disease occurrence will be simplified as follows: The codes for positive
occurrence:
"+" Reported or known to occur
"+? Serological evidence
and/or isolation of causative agent, no clinical disease
An optional qualifier for the
above two positive occurrence codes:
( ) Confined to certain zones”.
6.4 Now importing countries have much less regular information
about disease status data for decision making than before ! My letter protesting against this unfair and not
responsible decision about this non-interpretable symbol “+” was answered by the letter of Dr Jean
Blancou, Director General, OIE dated
6.5 The
above mentioned OIE Working group is responsible for incredible mess,
disinformation (occurrence numeric absolute data in OIE yearbooks are only ad hoc reported cases not reflecting the
true status and therefore are significantly confusing importing countries
decision making), for very serious gap (abolishing useful occurrence
indicators and excellent software HANDISTAT) in the OIE statistic
information system (diseases status) and for professional nonsense
regarding "risk assessment", "surveillance standards" and
prevalence calculation, not respecting obvious suggestions for information
improvement, etc.. The OIE proved that it had not professionals who understood
the problem, had practical experience at national level, knew importing
countries needs and fully respected original OIE policy aimed at the promotion,
protection and recovery of global animal population health.
6.6 Other examples of not
respecting any suggestions to correct information system: From the letter of Dr
Vallat, Director General, OIE dated 20 December 2001 to Prof. Kouba: Subject –
Improvement of the OIE Global Animal Health Information System: “So starting from January 2002, a new
department will be dedicated to address the problems mentioned in your letter
(15/12/2001). I am pleased to inform you that your letter was transferred to Dr
Ben Jebara, the Head of the Animal Health Information Department, and that I am
sure that many of your comments will be taken into account while developing the
activities of this new Department.”.
As usually before, when Dr
Blancou was DG OIE and Dr T. Chillaud was the responsible officer for this
field of OIE activities, no one of the recommendations (including to correct
professional nonsense) was accepted. It is obvious that there was not any
good will to improve information system to provide more information for the
decisions on import conditions.
6.7 K. Ben Jebara, Head, Animal
Health Information Department, OIE in his paper ”Surveillance, detection and responses: managing emerging diseases et
national and international levels” in Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz.,
2004,23 (2), 709-715 dealing with zoonoses emergence didn’t consider that information on zoonoses occurrence
provided by the OIE is absolutely
insufficient, significantly less than a decade ago, and that some important
zoonoses are not monitored at all. This is valid not only for the zoonoses. He
stressed the need to established at the central veterinary administration a
“veterinary epidemiology units” for surveillance and monitoring (this “need”
has been published many times during last two decades). The question is what
kind of data it will process and report when the knowledge of epizootiological
situation is unknown or known only very superficially? For sending to OIE that
the disease occurrence = “+” and “…” i.e. “no information available”, there is
not any need for such an unit only for statistical calculation of not reliable
data (garbage in, garbage out) and corresponding paperwork. Practical
epizootiology or epidemiology as well as disease reporting are based on field
work and not on administrative activities. The absurd reduction of disease reporting has nothing to do
with real epizootiological (epidemiological) work and makes almost impossible
to assess disease situation in exporting countries as basic information for any
disease import risk evaluation to be carried out by importing countries.
Example:
6.8 Ad absurdum minimizing data on disease situation in exporting
countries has become irreversible interest of OIE antisanitary policy
“facilitating disease export” loosing its original role of animal health
protector in the world. A question is arising “Is the OIE still objective
neutral intergovernmental organization or has become a club of CVOs dominated
by major exporting countries at the expense of importing countries’ animal
health and money ?”
6.9
The OIE in 1998 even abolished
without any scientific, practical and logical justification and without any
replacement international statistical (numeric) classification of specific
communicable diseases ! This is something unimaginable e.g. in human
medicine and in the computer age also in all other relevant fields ! Without
international statistical classification the terms of individual diseases
defined by particular numbers is very easy to confuse the diseases having in
different languages (more than one hundred), even in international ones,
different expressions. What about the
OIE changing sometimes the terms of specific diseases? This criminal “clouding” disease
situation in exporting countries represents further tricky step of
the OIE “to facilitate international trade” at the expense of animal and human
health in importing countries complicating as much as possible importing
country decision-making on veterinary conditions.
6.10 Among the members of the
OIE Working Group on Informatics and
Epidemiology sharing responsibility for the after-WTO/SPS significant reduction
and deformation of the global animal health information system belonged : Dr Randall S. Morley (Canada), Dr Stuart C.
MacDiarmid (New Zealand), Dr G. K. Bruckner (South Africa) and Dr Sharon R.
Thompson (USA). All of them together with the DG and other OIE HQs staff are
historically responsible for the shameful dismantlement of animal health system
including also very important disease occurrence epizootiological
characterization as well as on disease imports.
6.11
If we study carefully incredible antisanitary statements of the most
influential OIE “officers” about the “no need” for information on animal
disease occurrence then we can understand better the antisanitary OIE policy minimizing up to avoiding informative value of the OIE “information system”
(better call it “non-information system”) for importing countries decision
about veterinary conditions and confusing/blinding them as much as possible.
Examples:
-"If,
for a particular trade, we have available risk reducing tools (tests,
treatment, whatever) … what does it matter
what starting risk was ?" (!?) (MacDiarmid, Secretary General, OIE
Commission for the Terrestrial Animal Health Code).
- "The need to remove technical obstacles to the free circulation of
animals and their products";
"It is not longer possible to apply the old system under which animals and
animal products had to come from specific free zones, and were subjected to
isolation, quarantine, inspection and diagnostic testing before and after
export." (!?) (V. Caporale, President, OIE Scientific
Commission for Animal Diseases)
- “Historically,
too much emphasis has been placed on how a country or zone can reach ‘disease
free’ status and then base the safety of its trade on such freedom”. “The OIE
is taking a new approach to setting standards and revising existing ones: the
categorization of a country/zone status is first based on the assessment of the
overall level of risk present in the country/zone or animal population, rather than on whether a disease has been reported or not.” (!?) (A. Thiermann, President, OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Standards Commission ).
More information in http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/oiecode.htm.
These
statements reflect as an absolute underestimation (or
the most probably deliberate arrangement to trickily “facilitate trade”
following the OIE Code concept) of the importance of disease free status
and of disease reporting for
international trade ! In other words: “what does it matter what animal disease occurrence in exporting
country is” ?
7. OIE deliberate abolition of
regular reporting on animal disease import cases avoiding the analysis of
disease spread through international trade
7.1 One of the most dangerous
changes carried out by the OIE in 1996 was the abolition of regular
reporting on animal disease import cases. This step extremely favourable to
major exporting countries has prevented member countries and world public from
objective information on disease spreading through international trade in
animals and animal products. This antisanitary step has prevented the
scientific institutions from analyzing this phenomenon, the most important for
globalization of animal diseases, including those transmissible to man.
Deliberate abolition of the extremely important reporting on disease export has
been one of key arrangements to make impossible any objective negative
impact evaluation of the antisanitary WTO and OIE documents which would require
as follow-up their abolition. The intention of the authors was to create an
irreparable trap referring to the policy “approved” thanks to the trickery and
pressure of major exporting countries on the importing ones to “accept” also
non-healthy animals and non-pathogen-free products (see http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/WTOTEXT3.htm).
No importing country is willing consciously and voluntarily to import
diseases of animals and man !
Example: Dr B.
Vallat, Director General, OIE wrote me in his letter
of
7.2 The OIE Code and the authors
of the above “measures” have called repeatedly for “scientific disease import
risk assessment” to be elaborated by importing countries when asking for
disease free import. However, neither the OIE nor the “experts” have
analysed the risk of the WTO/SPS and of the “new” Code for disease spreading
and negative impact on global animal health. Any United Nations project
before starting must contain clear analysis of its risks. The OIE doesn’t know this absolutely basic
principle. On the other hand both documents require importing countries to
elaborate risk assessment documents following absurd OIE Code methodology.
7.3 The WTO and OIE from the
very beginning have avoided deliberately any objective analysis on the
catastrophic consequences of their antisanitary policy and have concealed the
alarming truth from world public and member country governments. The tragedy is
that this dirty behaviour is supported and illogically defended by many so
called “veterinary epidemiologists” of the major exporting countries not
respecting at all scientific methods based on well documented facts.
7.4 The WTO and OIE
obviously are not concerned at all about the globalization of communicable
animal diseases through international trade in animals and animal products
as the fruit of their policy. Similar behaviour of the unconcern has proved
even FAO and WHO as well as World Veterinary Association, namely International
Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE).
7.5 There has been created
artificially an atmosphere of not admitting even any international discussion
or doubts or analyses or publication about the tragic consequences of the WTO
and OIE policy.
Example:
During the X. Symposium of the ISVEE in
7.6 Due to missing analyses of the WTO/SPS and
OIE Code consequences, the author himself as retired former Chief, Animal
Health Service, FAO-UN spent a lot of time to study all available incomplete
(thanks to OIE information reduction from 1996) official data on disease
import as reported by the governments to FAO-UN and OIE. The result was
published in Acta Veterinaria Brno, 2003, 72: 453-460 (see also on the author
website under the title “Globalization of communicable diseases of animals –
crisis of veterinary medicine”). The abstract of this paper see below:
„The analysis
of animal diseases globalization is based on official reports on communicable disease
introductions through international trade. Number of available reports on these
cases during 1980-2000 reached 607: 117 OIE List A disease cases (including
33 of foot-and-mouth disease), 365 OIE List B disease cases (74 of multiple
animal species diseases, 142 of cattle diseases, 42 of sheep and goat diseases,
29 of horse diseases, 12 of pig diseases, 49 of avian diseases, etc.), 108 OIE
List C disease cases and 17 cases of other diseases. The import of diseases
transmissible to man was reported 212 times (34.93 %). Cases of disease
reappearance, i.e. newly imported or reemerged after 3 and more years, were
reported 329 times. Number of reports on animal disease "recognized in
country for the first time" reached 420 cases. All reported data represent
only "the tip of the iceberg". Disease import is usually
followed by spreading extremely difficult to control, often no manageable and with
catastrophic consequences. Very limited number of successful communicable
disease control and eradication programmes together with all recoveries of
individual diseased animals cannot compensate at all rapidly increasing animal
population morbidity in the world. No one animal disease has been globally
eradicated yet. Diseases import devaluates the results of control and
eradication programmes. Diseases are spreading as never in the past when
the trade used to be of much minor size and intensity at much shorter distances
to much lesser number of destination places. The situation is getting worse
every day towards man-made global ecological irreparable disaster.
Continuing worldwide mass spreading of communicable diseases, not being blocked
by effective measures, represents serious global crisis of veterinary medicine
which historical mission is to promote, protect and recover animal health.“
7.7 Due to missing information
system on the impact of WTO/SPS and OIE Code on disease export/import, relevant
statistical data are not available and scientific analyses are not possible (in
spite of repeatedly using the term “scientific” in almost all respective
documents of the WTO and OIE (having even Scientific and Technical Department).
What can be more important for the OIE than to monitor worsening global
situation in animal health due to international man-made disease spreading to can recommend member country governments
adequate protective measures ? Or this is not more the OIE duty ?
8. Zero
or minimal knowledge on animal population diseases’ occurrence in
exporting countries
8.1 The basis for communicable
disease situation knowledge depends first of all on primary reporting by
animal owners. This depends on their knowledge to be able to
identify particular disease suspicion and on their willingness to report the
case to veterinary service. Usually the animal owners first do not accept the
idea of communicable disease possibility and try to solve the problem
themselves, e.g. treating diseased animals. They are afraid to report the case
to the authority with the risk of restrictive measures (e.g. herd isolation,
exclusion from trade, sanitary slaughter, investigations, etc.). When the
result is not satisfactory and the disease spreads on other animals then finally
is called local
veterinarian (usually private one). Again it depends on
his professional knowledge to be able to exclude particular disease
suspicion or to confirm it. Very often initially he hesitates to report the
case to public veterinary service and tries to solve the problem himself being
afraid of strict anti-epizootic measures and their consequences. Again when the
result is not satisfactory and the disease spreads on other animals then
finally is called public veterinarian who revises the diagnosis
and measures. In case of doubt the specimens are sent to diagnostic
laboratories for the confirmation of the preliminary diagnosis or for the
exclusion of particular disease suspicion. It is obvious that the reporting to the
veterinary authorities has always certain delay. Examples see in 5.6.
8.2 In case of confirmation of internationally
notifiable disease the report is included into official data to be sent to
relevant international organization for further dissemination. The above
procedure is valid for clinically manifested cases representing in the
overwhelming majority of communicable diseases in animals only very small part
of particular disease cases. This confirms that real epizootiological situation in
individual communicable diseases at country and global levels is unknown.
Therefore, international trade in animals and animal products not considering
this fact (WTO/SPS, OIE Code, etc.) in exporting countries facilitates mass
spreading of diseases into importing
countries conducing to irreparable disease globalization.
Example:
Toma et. al.: Dictionary of Veterinary Epidemiology. Iowa State University
Press,
What about animal diseases data
reported and processed by "statistical epidemiologists"? Exact
calculation of data not corresponding with the reality ! What about the reliability of numeric data
reported to and published in the OIE World Animal Health yearbook ?
In some diseases the relation of real number of affected animals (i.e.
including “carriers”) and ad hoc reported clinical cases can reach
a multiple even of hundreds and thousands.
8.3 The above mentioned
phenomenon demonstrates that the numbers of internationally reported cases are absolutely
not reflecting specific epizootiological reality and serve only for serious confusing of other member countries, mainly
importing ones. It seemingly make epizootiological situation much better
than is the reality which is relatively favourable for exporting countries.
This is obviously the main reason why OIE international animal health
information system is using numeric data in spite of their minimal information
value.
There were different approach
in collecting data on disease occurrence. FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook
programme was collecting and publishing on disease occurrence
professional estimates while OIE World Animal Health absolute
numeric data. FAO refused to apply using absolute numbers on disease cases due
to generally knew fact, that no country knows exactly the number of diseased
animals and their outbreaks of all notifiable diseases, similarly as in human
medicine (not considering some exceptions of
primary outbreak of introduced exotic disease).
Example:
Prof. Dr Zdenek Jezek, leader of the WHO successful programme of the
eradication of small pox in the world (the first communicable disease
eradicated globally) wrote that as the basis for operational control and eradication
actions there was the outbreak (affected village) and not continuously changing
numbers of diseases persons (there were usually not calculated due to almost
every hour changes).
8.4 One of symptoms of the incorrectness of reporting on country situation
are the serious discrepancies between the data on farm animal populations
reported by the Chief Veterinary Officers to OIE (published in OIE World Animal
Health yearbook) and by the governments to the FAO-UN (published in FAO
Production Yearbook – FAOSTAT). These data represent the basis for any
epizootiological analysis applying particular indicators such as incidence and
prevalence rate etc. This discrepancies had been inexistent until 1995
when published only official data sent by the governments to FAO-UN, i.e.
without bothering the CVOs. The OIE started collecting these data through CVOs
from 1996 only not respecting government official data and thus created serious
confusions in the global animal health information system. In spite of my protest,
the OIE has continued this nonsense
absurd policy in spite of having repeatedly in all its documents hypocritical
statements on scientific procedures, justification, standards etc. The
confusion is not necessary if CVOs respect their governments and send to OIE
official correct data. This requirement is logical and simple but not for the OIE information system
giving priorities to the formal aspects and not to the contents and scientific
exactness oriented towards serving to member country governments. It has
been very strange behaviour when the inter-government organization such as the
OIE has been not respecting at all member country government data. This is one
argument more that the OIE has lost the character of real inter-government
organization when behaving as a “society of the CVOs” without being responsible
for the consequences of its “new” policy in the world animal health situation.
Even mass use of computers cannot avoid data discrepancies when the
methodology for data collection and
reporting is not uniform. It is logical that when using different data sources
on the same indicator there is the risk to get different result numbers.
Examples:
From
an e-mail of Dr Edward D. Gillin, Chief, Basic Data Branch, Statistic Division,
FAO,
In Bernard Toma (Head, Infectious Diseases Unit,
What
number was correct ?
8.5 Many CVOs of the major exporting
countries, countries of strong influence
on OIE policy, even of countries having representatives in the OIE Working Group on Veterinary Epidemiology
and Informatics (giving “lessons” to the others) and of countries defending and
propagating the nonsense OIE Code methodology for disease risk assessment, do
not respect at all scientific approach based on non-confusing data reporting.
Examples of
2003 data discrepancies – differences between numbers reported by the CVOs and
by the governments:
8.6 How can be trusted the reports on disease
situation and export attests of countries where the CVO doesn’t know even the
simplest indicator such as the size of farm animal populations ?
8.7 There is difficult to
understand why the OIE has not been able during last decade to assure the
simplest arrangement for using correct official, i.e. government data on farm
animal populations’ size which are available free of charge at FAO Statistic
Division. This creates serious doubts about professional qualification
of respective OIE HQs staff and OIE information experts not respecting neither
normal logic nor scientific principles.
8.8 Other discrepancy between
official government and CVO data on animal population’ size. The animal species
structure being used satisfactorily for decades for government reporting to
United Nations is not respected by the OIE which complicate respective analyses
(comparative studies, time series, etc.): FAO livestock numbers structure:
horses, mules, asses, cattle, buffaloes, camels, pigs, sheep, goat, chicken,
ducks and turkey. OIE livestock numbers following structure: cattle, buffaloes,
sheep, goats, equidae, camelidae, cervidae, swine, birds and rabbits/hares.
This discrepancy didn’t exist before WTO/SPS and follow-up OIE “reform”. Why
the countries must send the reports on the same phenomena using two different structure
questionnaire ?
8.9
OIE repeatedly refuse my recommendations to include into global animal health
information system the data on the size of specific investigations (missing) to be able to distinguish if the reported
numbers on disease cases are the results
of ad hoc collection or of mass
investigation. It is obvious that the first form has minimal information value
and is even confusing importing countries due to getting reports representing
only a fragment of the reality. The size of investigations indicates how far
the country knows epizootiological reality and is able to guarantee sanitary
quality of exporting commodities. The major exporting countries are afraid to
admit their inability to control properly sanitary situation which could
complicate their relatively easy export, requiring minimal inputs, at the
expense of animal and human health in importing countries.
In connection with the BSE are interesting the data
on the number of laboratory tests during 2003 - examples according to OIE World Animal Health in 2003
=============================================================
Country
BSE cases
number of bovine
number of
aged over 24 months
tests
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czech
Rep. 4 691,785 210,184
Japan 4 2,034,200 missing text
==============================================================
*)
including one case in
Note: In
8.10
Information on the staff capacity of public veterinary services see on the same
website in “Global crisis of professional veterinary manpower” to understand
better how far these services are able to control epizootiological situation
and trade.
8.11 There are other deficiencies
in the OIE animal health information system such as different data on the “year
of last case of particular disease”. In some cases this term is not uniformly
understood.
Examples:
8.12
As a component of a “new” global animal health policy from 1996 disappeared
also exact scientific definitions of the basic indicators such as different
forms of disease incidence and prevalence. In previous FAO/WHO/OIE Animal
Health Yearbook issues (from 1983) there was a three language page with exact definitions
expressed using mathematical formulae with corresponding examples to assure
international uniformity in understanding and application of these key terms in
the global animal health information system. Today in the OIE Code are included
very general definitions of the incidence and prevalence and thus conducing
(deliberately?) to different understanding. Uniform exact definitions of basic
terms is the precondition for any good information system which unfortunately
is not the case in global animal health information system.
8.13
Other serious problem is the incredible instability
of the OIE information system being changed every year without any respect of
the consequences. The authors have not considered at all that any “novelty”
introduction requires to inform and instruct more than half a million
veterinarians in the world, to change data collection system
including new forms (questionnaires), information software programme etc. what
costs a lot of money and time. Not speaking about the need to accustom all involved persons and organizations in the
new system which usually takes years before working smoothly. Nobody studies
economic consequences and time consumption of the mentioned changes. My
proposal, sent to DG OIE, for periodical five year evaluations, with follow-up
by changes improving the system after being tested under practical conditions,
were not accepted. Often changes complicate or make impossible the time series
studies similarly as the change of the disease code numbers which is now
expected due to abolishing of the difference between List A and List B
diseases. The newest system WAHID even eliminated completely disease numeric
classification without any scientific, logical or practical justification
complicating seriously the search of disease occurrence data and international
comparison (study) within extraordinary information (or better no-information)
mess.
8.14 The
discrepancies are related also to the definitions of “all veterinarians”, “other veterinarians”,
etc. conducing to different reporting on the same indicator and thus creating
doubts about correctness of the other reported data of more specific animal
health character.
Examples of published
data: on Belgium number of government
veterinary officials in 1999 - 148 and in 2000 -
5463; on France number of government veterinary officials in
1998 - 608 and in 1999 and 2000 always
1000; on Italy number of government veterinary officials from 1997 up to 2001
always 5340 without any change; on Kuwait number of government veterinary
officials in 2000 – 1, in 2001 – 0 and
in 2002 – 25. Even
the country having its expert in the OIE Working Group on Informatics and
Epidemiology was unable to report correctly the number of veterinarians:
8.15
Not only above mentioned examples document missing of or serious gap in logical control of received data
by the Editor of OIE World Animal Health yearbook. The Editor has not compared
reported data with the reports of previous year(s). The is the main reason for
publishing so many nonsenses. This was unthinkable in FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health
Yearbook where every individual data was compared with the previous ones and
thus was avoided to publish nonsense data (sometimes due to administrative
errors). How can the OIE data can be trusted as truthful information ? These cases again reconfirm that
the OIE information system is absolutely lacking logical control of obtained
data, i.e. the
system in not reliable !
Examples documenting OIE sloppiness:
- Serious discrepancy
in reporting number of domestic animals by major exporting countries see in
paragraph 8.5.
- Incredible discrepancy in reporting number of
domestic animals can be found in OIE World Animal Health 2003, page 589:
Mongolia – number of cattle 1,793,000 while in OIE WAH 2004, page 629, ten
times more - 17,928,000 cattle (government data sent to UN were 2,053,700
cattle in 2003 and 2,200,000 cattle in 2004).
- United States reported in OIE World Animal Health yearbooks
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 that the last case of New World screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) was in 1982 in
spite of the new outbreak reported to the OIE on 20 November 1998 (according to
OIE Disease Information 22 January 1999, Vol. 12 - No.2 considered to be
eradicated on
8.16
OIE World Animal Health yearbook doesn’t
inform on disease situation in countries which have not sent any report
for the particular year. As the consequence the coverage is limited only to those
countries which have sent the report, i.e. the yearbook is providing absolutely incomplete picture of global situation.
Previously, the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook, to provide full global
coverage, published also data of countries which didn’t send the report for the
particular year and indicated clearly that these data are from previous
reports, i.e. repeated data.
9. Zero or minimal reliable
data for objective disease situation analysis and import risk assessment
9.1
For objective epizootiological analysis of
internationally reportable diseases there is a need for basic data which
are unfortunately not available in the global OIE information system.
Exceptions are represented only in some of the most important diseases such as
foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest and BSE. Available data provided by the OIE
are absolutely incomplete and usually non reliable also for objective
evaluation of disease import risk
assessment.
9.2
Any epizootiological analysis starts with the data animal population size,
structure, distribution, exploitation types, etc. The OIE information system
provides only data on the number of farm animals. These data sent by the Chief
Veterinary Officers to OIE are often in discrepancy with the official ones
sent by the governments to FAO-UN (see 8.5).
9.3 The OIE doesn’t consider at all that for the analyses
of animal health situation and for reliable disease risk assessment related to
international trade, the information system must provide much more information on
all internationally reportable diseases than in the past.
9.4 The OIE, when using instead of relatively reliable professional
estimates of disease’ occurrence (considering all available information) only the
numeric (absolute) data, doesn’t consider at all that disease occurrence is characterized by the
indicators informing about the situation at
the beginning (initial point prevalence), during the period (incidence and
period prevalence) and at the end of the period (final point prevalence) of
affected animals and of outbreaks. For the comparison between
different territories the absolute numbers must be combined by relative ones
(rates, proportions or %). Unfortunately, data for the evaluation of the mentioned basic
epizootiological indicators are missing at all !
9.5 For practical reasons only the most useful
indicators with clear definitions to be used. (The definitions of
“incidence” and “prevalence” in OIE Code are general, not using mathematical
expressions, i.e. conducing to different understanding. Therefore, I
recommended in the letters to Dr Tierry Chillaud, Head, Information and Trade
Department, OIE dated 16 December 1997
and to Dr Jean Blancou, Director General, OIE dated 19 October 1998 following improvements of the global animal
health information system, in particular for annual data reporting (World
Animal Health - Part 2 - Tables).
“a) To change the
occurrence columns "outbreaks" and "cases" into "new
outbreaks" and "new cases" to be clear that the
values represent the annual incidence and not point prevalence at the end of
the year. Incidence value is significant for the risk assessment indicating the
dynamics of specific disease epizootic processes and the effectivity of
protective measures.
b) To
include into "occurrence" columns a new indicator: number of "outbreaks
at the end" of year (final point prevalence of foci) reflecting the
result of the annual development (natural or due to control measures).
c) To
include into "occurrence" a new indicator: "final prevalence
rate" (final point prevalence rate) as the number of cases existing at
the end of the given year divided by the total number of animals existing at
the same time (expressed in %).
Prevalence rate is the basic indicator for
disease risk assessment ! Reports of this indicator value can save importing
country veterinary service from complicated calculations of exporting country
specific disease prevalence having available reported occurrence symbols only.
Other suggestions and comments:
a) To
delete the columns "deaths", "slaughtered" and
"treated" which are mostly empty and incomplete saving space for
other more important ones needed for disease risk assessment. Control symbols
and explanatory notes could be sufficient.
b) To
amend the Multiple species of the List B by
"salmonellosis" (selected species) belonging among the most
important zoonoses, or to add it into the lists of diseases of cattle and pigs.
c) To
replace "Caprine and ovine brucellosis (excluding B. ovis)" as B 152
by "Brucella melitensis infection" and thus to avoid mixing with B.
abortus and B. suis. This zoonosis must have clear scientific name as all other
diseases.
d) To
delete in the definition of the symbol "+?" the words "/or
isolation of causative agents,". The isolation, i.e. direct prove of
etiological agent, has at least the same importance for disease risk assessment
as specific clinical manifestation.
e) To use
only one list of occurrence symbols, i.e. the separate list of the symbols
published in "OIE World Animal World in 1996" (page 379) to be
deleted.
f) To
include detailed information on internationally recognized "specific
disease free zones" in the yearbook, providing analogical data on specific
disease as for the whole country, including the description of the territory
and the control and protective measures.
g) To
issue OIE instructions for the preparation of the country reports which
represent complementary information to reported tables based on particular
questionnaire.
h) To
publish the list of countries not having sent the annual report (statistics) or
better to publish the last report indicating clearly the year and that the
actual reality could be different.
i) To
prepare global introduction of a new perspective reporting system using
geographical coordinates for territorial disease distribution and mapping
(according to the PANAFTOSA method proved in continental practice).”
9.6
As usually the OIE proved absolute inflexibility to change anything towards
providing more and better information on disease situation. Obviously, absurd
minimization of data useful for country
decisions on import conditions avoiding objective disease import risk
assessment, has been the “policy” of the OIE. If we look in the World Animal
Health in 2003 – Tables then we can see that many columns are left empty
without any data which can be due to gaps in national information system or
inability to control specific diseases’ epizootiological situation. Missing
data on exporting country disease situation are serious obstacle for disease
import risk assessment. How can importing
countries evaluate this risk from one “+” and “… information not available”
with empty columns of the OIE Table indicators such as “number
of outbreaks”, “number of cases”, “number of deaths”, “number of animals
destroyed, slaughtered, vaccinated” ? This reality reflects very low level and
intensity of internationally reportable disease surveillance, monitoring and
control if any.
Examples:
The numeric columns in the tables of the World Animal Health in 2003 are let
empty for all diseases even in the reports of some major exporting countries
such as Australia, New Zealand (having
its officer Dr MacDiarmid in one of highest positions at OIE HQs giving “lessons”
to the whole world in so called “disease
import risk assessment” requiring incredible amount of different data to be
processed by importing countries without being provided by necessary data on
exporting country disease situation (?).
9.7 Some countries report in the OIE World Animal
Health yearbook only partial data not for the whole year or of deliberately
reduced values (untruth to facilitate export) , i.e. incomplete, reflecting
the insufficiency of or the mess in national information system. In exceptional
cases numeric data was accompanied by the note informing that they are only
partial, i.e. not for the whole year. How importing country can evaluate the
disease import risk having available only
exporting country incomplete data
delayed more than one year or having no data at all ?
Example: World Animal Health 2002 yearbook (page 570)
published in autumn 2003 the Italian numeric data on bovine tuberculosis,
brucellosis and leucosis with the note “Partial
data up to 30 June 2002”; the same was published in World Animal Health
2003 yearbook (page 542) for the mentioned diseases and cap/ovi brucellosis – “Partial data up to 30 June 2003”; the
same was published in World Animal Health 2004
yearbook (page 578) for the mentioned diseases and cap/ovi brucellosis
– “Partial data up to 30 June 2004”; in the World Animal Health 2001 data on the
mentioned bovine diseases are missing at all ! (Italy has been organizing
several international courses on animal disease surveillance giving “lessons”
to the others with better system (!?); its officers have been in highest
positions at OIE HQs – Prof.Dr Romano Marabelli, President, OIE, Prof.Dr
Vincenzo Caporale, President, OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases).
9.8
How can importing countries evaluate current disease import risk having no even
minimal data on exporting countries for
normal procedure ? This fact explains the interest of the major exporting
countries for disease import risk assessment according to the OIE Code nonsense
theoretical methodology not requiring data on exporting countries
situation (what these countries do not
know or report) ! This swindle represents the main concept of the WTO/SPS and
the OIE Code conducing to man-made animal disease globalization ! More
information see on the same website in “Abuse of disease import risk assessment
method = facilitating disease export”.
9.9 Absurd reduction of information on animal disease occurrence by the
OIE is obviously reflecting the antisanitary “philosophy” of some leading
officers of the OIE HQs. (!?) This “principles”
can be understandable when taking into account that many major exporting
countries are obviously unable, mainly due to relatively very weak public
services, to control effectively the occurrence of diseases, trade and attest
issuing “accredited” veterinarians as well as to guarantee full sanitary
wholesomeness. According to this “philosophy” there is not important what is
the disease situation in exporting countries !? In the other words there is
not the need for intensive disease control or eradication, perfect disease
cases reporting in exporting countries ! Shortly, these countries can apply the
strategy “doing nothing” and export not respecting (not knowing) disease
situation thanks to the support in this dirty policy by the WTO/SPS and OIE
Code. Impudence and spitting on all the medical and
logical principles this planet has never experienced.
One of the leading OIE Officers is Dr S. MacDiarmid, the initiator of the abused risk assessment
“mania” who was “promoted” from the member of the OIE Working Group on
Informatics and Epidemiology (which deliberately abolished previous
satisfactory global regular information system on animal diseases and even
abolished regular reporting on disease introduction through animal import !) to
Secretary-General, OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission wrote me on
15 January 1996 “If, for a particular trade,
we have available risk reducing tools (tests, treatment, whatever) … what does
it matter what starting risk was ?" (?!).In this context the statement of another top level OIE officer Prof. Dr
V. Caporale merits attention: ”The need to remove technical obstacles to the
free circulation of animals and their products. It is not longer possible to
apply the old system under which animals and animal products had to come from
specific free zones, and were subjected to isolation, quarantine, inspection
and diagnostic testing before and after export."
9.10 If we summarize all
numeric false data as reported to and published in OIE World Animal Health
yearbook on disease occurrence and losses then we are loosing the main argument
of animal diseases’ importance required for convincing decision makers on the need to strengthen
public veterinary services and disease control programmes. The total of
reported numbers of internationally notifiable disease cases is so small (up to
several thousands) in comparison with the world populations of many hundred
millions (e.g. cattle more than a billion heads) that their importance looks according to the OIE to be
close to zero which is absolutely not the truth!
This facts support the tendency to minimize public
veterinary services and minimize the budget and support of anti-epizootic
programmes. This fact is degrading and “killing”
veterinary medicine as important public health, economic, ecological and social
factor. OIE has
proved not being interested in analysing objectively global losses and human
health consequences of animal diseases for getting necessary support of control
and eradication programmes and thus giving an example for national analyses.
Theoretical and demagogical arguments of the OIE about the importance of animal
diseases and of public veterinary services have no weight to convince
governments and international organization on the need to strengthen the protect
of healthy animals. This fact is one of the factors facilitating to get through
the antisanitary document such as WTO/SPS conducing consciously to the
globalization of communicable animal diseases. This fact being consciously
disseminated by the OIE has conduced to critical absence of motivation and
demobilization of governments’ anti-epizootic programme support.
The FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health
Yearbook (abolished in 1996) was used also for estimating the losses due to
animal diseases. First analysis was carried out in 1965 based on official reports of the CVOs with
following results in a form of the losses’ proportions from the total national animal
production values: e.g. Columbia – 27.1 %, Equator – 12.9 %, USA – 15.4 %,
France – 15.1 %, Ireland – 20 %, Italy – 19 %, Mexico – 37.3, Peru – 36.8 %,
Uruguay – 31.5 %, Uganda – 31 %, etc. The author after becoming the
Editor-in-Chief, using an interpolation of available data collected from
selected countries, analysed and
published in 1980 annual world losses due to natural death: 64 million cattle –
12.7 million MT, 128 million pigs – 9 million MT, 100 million sheep – 1.5
million MT and 43 million goats – 0.5 million MT; total 23.7 million MT. He introduced
from 1983 the collection and publication
of the numbers of animal deaths caused by disease (experimental table using
data of selected countries), total food losses caused by animal diseases
(experimental table) and number of born
and death due to natural causes. In
1988 it was started publishing FAO/WHO
Experimental Table – Cases of animal diseases (zoonoses) in human population. The aim was to provide member country
governments with the arguments supporting animal health programmes and
services.
9.11 It is a pity that the OIE is not
involved (not interested or afraid ?) in
collecting and publishing data for global analyses of disease consequences and
their causes. The OIE as well as the WTO have not yet presented to member
country governments any analysis of global consequences of their policy and documents
(WTO/SPS and OIE Code) on animal and human health, in particular in importing
countries. These organizations, in spite of their documents being in force
already one decade, have not demonstrated even minimal effort to analyse the
consequences and further risk for global animal and human health.
Obviously, they are afraid that the member country governments would know the harsh
reality of this catastrophic policy impacts
and that they would discover that there have been cheated ! The WTO policy has been always trying to facilitate trade at any cost,
however the OIE has given up the protection of animal health in contrast with
its professional duty. The consequences are already irreparable.
9.12 How
can importing countries objectively assess the risk associated with
epizootiological situation in exporting countries when the OIE annual information
have almost one year or more delay? The OIE obviously exploit any chance to
complicate the decision process of the importing countries. Not only the
reports are reduced to one “+” and “… no information available” but also other
information on disease situation are outdated !
Example: The author on
10. Zero or minimal information
on the frequency and types of disease
investigations in exporting countries
10.1 One of the most important
criterion of the ability to control animal health situation is the frequency
and types of specific diseases’ investigations to can understand if reported
occurrence data are based on active retrieval or only on ad hoc reporting.
10.2 The major exporting
countries and the OIE have obstructed the inclusion in regular information
system data on disease investigations’ frequency in spite of several times
presented recommendations by the author sent to OIE HQs in Paris.
Example: Recommendations from
my letter sent to Dr T. Chillaud, Head, Information and Trade Department, OIE
on 16. December 1997: “To include into "control" columns a new one:
number of specifically "investigated" or "tested"
animals, using OIE diagnostic standard methods, to inform about the size of
tested animals . Investigation coverage
is utmost important for assessing the grade of knowledge about the absence,
presence and distribution of the diseases with a good part of subclinically
affected animals. This indicator reflects the quality of monitoring and
surveillance systems.” (full text of the letter see on the same website in
“Warning letters”).
Also in my letter sent to Dr
Vallat, President, OIE Code Commission dated 30 March 2000 was recommended to include into global OIE
information system also data on disease investigation:” I have seen the new proposals for chapter 1.4.3 regarding to
"Evaluation of Veterinary Services". I would suggest to stress more
its purpose, i.e. to provide information to importing countries to be able to
asses the reliability of veterinary attests and the. system of analysis for
confirmation disease free animals, herds and territories as the basis for
issuing veterinary attests. I recommend to include "investigation of
animals, herds and territory for confirming diseases free status" which
according to me is the most important activity needed for issuing veterinary
certificate for export. “
10.3 The major exporting countries obviously are
afraid to let know importing countries about relatively limited number of
investigated animals, i.e. to unveil that specific disease
surveillance, monitoring and control are not adequate or even not existent
which could complicate the export demonstrating the truth on the country particular
performance, competence and reliability. This is obviously the reason why
from more than hundred of indicators (criteria) for veterinary service evaluation
in the OIE Code 2004 (chapter 1.3.3 Evaluation of veterinary services and
chapter 1.3.4 Guidelines for the evaluation of veterinary services) were omitted the main
ones: investigation coverage of animal populations tested for specific diseases and documented practical results in disease
prevention, control and eradication.
Some exporting countries apply
the principle ”No etiological investigation = no specific
disease = specific health = reporting no occurrence” to facilitate trade. Clinical investigations only to
confirm specific disease-free status is not sufficient.
10.4 Only some countries report
the number of specific investigations for the World Animal Health, OIE,
Country Reports but not always indicating the type of tests to can assess the
reliability of the resulted numbers of positive, eventually negative cases.
10.5 Some countries report the
number of specific investigations for the World Animal Health, OIE, Country
Reports but the used tests are not the most effective in terms of the
sensitivity (false negative results) as recommended by the “OIE Manual of
Standards of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines”. Using less sensitive diagnostic
methods means not to discover all affected animals and herds what reflects
in the difficulties in controlling or eradicating respective disease in the
country.
Example: Among
relatively few countries reporting also the numbers of specific investigations
belongs
New
Zealand reported in previous WAH yearbook
issues that it had managed to reduce successfully bovine tuberculosis
prevalence below 0.1 % already in 1979; however in spite of all efforts
the disease spread in wild animals: from 1985 have been reported in possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), from 1987 in farm deer (Cervus elaphus) and from 1991 also in ferrets (Mustela furo). In 2004 tb was reported (according to WAH 2004, page
251) also in wild pigs, wild cats, stoats, hedgehogs and hares, i.e. the tb
situation became worse than before, obviously due inadequate of
epizootiological control and quite ineffective anti-tb programmes. The bovine
tb instability was confirmed also in farmed cervidae: “At
In spite of this unfavourable situation the
10.6 The users of diagnostic tests need to know their sensitivity and specificity to be able to assess their reliability, the frequency of false results, first of all
false negative ones in affected animals. Animals considered as specifically
healthy due to false negative results are the most dangerous for the trade.
These animals without any clinical symptoms – animal-carriers represent the
most frequent form of pathogen spreading. Unfortunately, OIE Manual of
Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines is lacking information on individual test
sensitivity and specificity values. In the chapter “Determining
assay performance characteristics” is described the calculation method of
diagnostic sensitivity and specificity but not applied in individual tests. For
identifying sensitivity and specificity there is a need for a lot of
experimental work which is possible only in specialized institution. Therefore,
it is impossible to ask individual countries to carry out extremely demanding
research = recommendation in this chapter, of the otherwise excellent Manual,
is for individual countries unreal.
From my letter to Dr Robert Reichard, Head,
Scientific and Technical Department, OIE dated 15 December 1997 (copy to DG
OIE): “For the next updated issue of the
OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines I would like to
recommend following suggestions and comments for consideration: All diagnostic methods should be amended by
the values of their diagnostic specificity and sensibility for individual
diseases (event. their forms and/or stages) in respective animal species. These
amendments are extraordinary important for the assessment of the risk of false
positive and false negative results. False results have serious negative
consequences for national and international trade, for the quality of disease
control and surveillance programmes as well as of information systems. Diagnostic
method specificity and sensibility, requiring demanding experiments, should be
provided by the reference laboratories or specialists – authors of individual
methods.”
Therefore, I asked Dr Leos Celeda, Czech Delegate to
the OIE to send official letter Dr Jean Blancou, DG OIE with similar
requirements. The answer dated
As
usually the OIE proved once again of not
having interest in scientific accuracy of recommended diagnostic methods in
spite of using hypocritically the term “scientific” in hundred occasions in
OIE publications. On the other hand,
e.g. OIE publications on risk assessment deal with test sensibility and
specificity as normal requirement which unfortunately cannot be met using OIE
Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Test and Vaccines, i.e. “correct” theory
without practical application.
I remember as former lecturer at “WHO/IZSTe Training course for the facilitators in
veterinary epidemiology”, Teramo, 3-16 December 1994 where Prof. Jean-Jacques
Bénet from Alfort Veterinary School spent one full day dealing with diagnostic
test sensibility and specificity stressing their extraordinary importance
(unlike the OIE).
10.7
Other not-satisfactory-solved problem is the absence of the international
reference “gold” standards of all diagnostic tests included in the OIE
Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines. Without them the
interpretation of the tests’ results are not uniform to assure international
compatibility and comparability of them. This is a very sensitive mater in
particular for international trade when different tests in the same animals or
samples give different results creating conflicts between the exporting and
importing countries. This discrepancy is usually more favourable for exporting
ones insisting on their tests’ result and refusing to accept for them troublesome
consequences .
10.8
Other problem is the reliability of the methods described in the above
mentioned OIE Manual and of international reference standards available for comparative
studies and for distribution. Almost all are prepared by individual private
specialists (not always the best and fully reliable) instead of top level internationally recognized
reference laboratories or institutions after very strict selection and follow-up
international supervision. The absence of full reliability offers the chance
for exporting countries to influence the reference standards for their interests.
The author also sent to the OIE respective
recommendations for consolidating this
very sensitive problem for the fairness of international trade (letter to Dr
Robert Reichard, Head, Scientific and Technical Department, OIE dated
10.9
Normally, any testing needs to know standard error of the results. This
knowledge is of extraordinary importance for epizootiological investigations,
investigation of animals and their products for trade, in particular
international one. Unfortunately, animal health practice is lacking of this
tool and no any international organization involved in animal health acts to
fill this gap. This fact represents one of the factors contributing to disease
spreading through international trade.
10.10
There is a general tendency of the exporting countries to report minimum
information on sanitary situation to be available to the
importing countries (not to complicate the export ?). This reality is reflected in the
OIE animal health information systems. The most frequent disease
occurrence symbol in the OIE World Animal health yearbook is “no information
available”. A lot of diseases of this yearbook are in many
countries simply not notifiable. On the other hand, the importing countries,
for correct anti-epizootic decisions to avoid pathogens’ introduction, need as much as possible data on epizootiological situation in traded
commodity provenance (country, territory, locality).
Examples: In paragraphs 12.6, 12.11, 12.12, 12.13,
12.17 and 12.18.
11. OIE abolition of software facilitating
analyses of animal health/disease situation for international trade
11.1 Original HandiSTATUS (Help with World Animal Disease Status) was a database programme which contained information about
animal diseases important to
international trade. The main sources of information were the FAO/OIE/WHO
Animal Health Yearbook, published by Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) and the International Animal health Code and World Animal
Health, produced by the International Office of Epizootics (OIE).
The development of this
database was initiated in response to request for information by animal health
personnel in the
11.2 This excellent
user-friendly software contained: selection of individual diseases (three
language names and synonyms), control methods (individual disease, type of
disease, vector transmitted diseases, status A,B,C, country or region,
species/commodity and zoonoses), selection of years, views (names, status),
International Animal Health Code, affected species and commodities, disease
transmission, reference laboratories, colour maps (world, continents), browse
distribution listing, yearbook-type listing, zoonoses (listing, map), previous
and next records, list of selected diseases, disease codes, occurrence codes,
control codes etc. Very important was import/export analysis section comparing
epizootiological situation in particular diseases between importing and
exporting countries as well as the history of individual diseases situation and
control in individual countries..
11.3 At the beginning of 1996
an agreement was reach for the OIE to take over responsibility for the future
maintenance and development of the application. Unfortunately, the result was
that for the next period of three years this software completely disappeared
leaving the countries without having the possibility the exploit this extremely
useful tool for their decision-making. The gap affected mainly importing
countries loosing a lot of information needed for correct decision on import
conditions to avoid disease import.
Therefore,
I sent several letters to Dr Jean Blancou, Director General, OIE in
11.4 Finally OIE produced new
version called HANDISTATUS II
unfortunately providing much less information needed for decision
making than the original version. The new HANDISTATUS II was developed
during long 3 years gap.
It was expected to produce a new software not only to be formally adjusted to
more actual computer system, but first of all to provide more information. It
was expected to be more helpful to the users, i.e. member country governments,
in deciding about control measures and animal commodities import conditions.
Unfortunately, this expectation was not achieved at all and the change was, from professional
usefulness point of view, for the
worse. The HANDISTATUS II provides information which are anyway
published in the OIE World Animal Health yearbook, offering annual data (from
1996) and tables similarly as the original version.
11.5 Unfortunately, many very useful information and components for disease situation
analysis and risk assessment, indispensable for import conditions decision,
were deleted without any replacement. When comparing original and “new” versions, following components disappeared:
a) full structure of occurrence grading symbols
(including symbols for introduced diseases through trade and first discovery in
a country) = most significant negative difference strongly degrading
(devaluating) the whole "new" information system;
b) global and regional
geographical maps of all
internationally reportable diseases included in the international
information system;
c) information on diseases providing type, incubation, if
the disease is or not transmissible to man, synonyms in three international
languages, affected species and commodities, disease transmission, etc.;
d) the most helpful information for the decision-making about
import/export (risk assessment) indicating difference between the
occurrence characteristic of relevant diseases which were for the importing
country exotic or new (comparing occurrence at origin and at destination),
considering also commodity types;
e) possibility to select group of diseases by
different criteria such as types of causal organism (from viruses to
parasites), vector transmitted diseases, animal species, commodities, zoonoses,
etc.;
f) possibility to select diseases according to which species
and commodity they affect;
g) filtering disease list by occurrence facilitating disease
situation analyses, risk assessment, analyses of disease introduction through
trade, historical time series, forecasting, etc.;
11.6 The original version
didn't provide very problematic misleading numerical data about the incidence
and losses which are absolutely incomplete and therefore confusing decision makers, as HANDISTATUS II
does today.
11.7 One of the advantage of the original
version was producing and distributing
it also in a compressed form on one 3.5 inch high density diskette, which facilitated
wider use.
11.8 From the professional point of view, the HANDISTATUS II, in comparison with
original version, has brought nothing new. On the contrary, it has moved this
system backward for the worse
as a deterrent example to be avoided in the future ! The “new” version lost professional originality and
inventiveness which was enriching the first version. In fact, it creates the
impression that the "new" version is something else.”
11.9 Abolishing FAO/WHO/OIE Animal health Yearbook
Programme in 1996 disappeared (without any professional or logical
justification and without any replacement) also very useful list of “Software
packages related to animal population, veterinary economics, management and
epidemiology” which was introduced in 1988. E.g. in 1995 there were
included 33 available software useful for animal population health/disease
analyses and programming.
12. New OIE system WAHID provides much less of useful
professional information on animal infection occurrence than before computer
era
12.1 The OIE launched in April, 2006 a programme called “World Animal Health
Information Database” (WAHID) available on the OIE website. This new very
extensive and extraordinary complicated (ad
absurdum) database was developed to replace HANDISTATUS II software
compiling data from 1996 to 2004. The problem is that in spite of exaggerated
number of collected data and their extraordinary combinations, the WAHID, version
1.0 doesn’t provide more professional information on disease occurrence than the
systems before HANDISTATUS II (FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook
programme, OIE World Animal Health yearbooks up to 1996), even before computer
era. The OIE stresses falsely and demagogically that the WAHID is more
user-friendly than HANDISTATUS II which was much less informative than original
HANDISTATUS (see chapter 11). According
to the OIE website the WAHID was developed by Australian Animal Health Services
and copyright is of the OIE 2006.
The problem of the member country governments is not so
important if the system is user-friendly but they need maximum possible
information of professional character on diseases’ occurrence useful for their
decision-making what is not the case in WAHID ! It is obvious that the authors - bureaucratic “armchair” theoreticians
- do not know at all the real information needs of the member country g o v e r
n m e n t s (not only Chief Veterinary
Officers) or that they have not good idea about practical epizootiology and
epidemiology. However, it cannot be avoided that the “new system” represents
other integral part of the tricky OIE policy facilitating export through
confusing consciously importing countries about disease’s occurrence reality in
the exporting ones. The WAHID is minimizing (up to zero) professional data
information on disease occurrence and not distinguishing them from enormous
number of data of no informative importance for the member country governments =
very few useful ones are lost (hidden)
in the “system”. It is obvious that the minimizing of disease occurrence
information deliberately serves for making impossible objective decisions of
importing countries on the conditions for the import of animal and animal products
– following the OIE Code official antisanitary policy to “safeguard world
trade” and not to “safeguard world animal health”.
12.2 The OIE likes the self-appreciation in everything,
including the WAHID. E.g. Dr Karim Ben Jebara, Head, OIE Animal Health
Information Department, responsible together with the Director General, OIE for
the system, explained demagogically that
“WADIH is designed to provide high
quality animal diseases information to all stakeholders including veterinary
services, international organization, trading partners, academics, the media
and the large public.” (OIE Press Release – update
In the reality the WADIH
provides very low quality information on internationally notifiable animal
diseases’ occurrence ! What are
the information on disease occurrence such as “+ = disease exists” but “… = information
not available” (in overwhelming number of internationally reportable diseases) for?
This gap cannot be repaired or filled by
any manipulations and exaggerated combinations with this kind of almost non-informative
data ! The “new” system continues in keeping extremely reduced regular information
system on animal disease occurrence, as established after the WTO/SPS in 1996,
instead to expand and improve it as much as possible !
12.3 The WAHID, according to its authors “is a milestone in OIE efforts to improve the
transparency, efficiency and speed with which animal health information is
disseminated throughout the world.”
The authors forget that the transparency, efficiency and
speed depend first of all on the reporting countries and on the professional
criteria requested. The authors forget that the transparency depends on how much and what
professional (epizootiological) indicators’ data are reported. The WAHID data are
so fragmented that the whole system is not transparent ! Instead to keep reported data by individual countries
as much as possible in one place, they are widely spread in different WAHID
components complicating seriously the analyses on exporting countries diseases’
occurrence.
The authors
forget that the efficiency depends on the complexity, reliability
and usefulness of reported field data (if representative, i.e. based
on population surveys or ad hoc, if
based on clinical only or on laboratory etiological diagnosis, who and how reports
to National Chief Veterinary Officer, etc.) which is not the case in the WAHID.
The speed is facilitated by using on-line and website
systems provided that the countries report the data promptly.
Example of the “speed”: OIE World Animal Health yearbook 2005 was
not yet available to Chief Veterinary Officer,
The
extraordinary incredible delay
of the OIE yearbook issue has never happened in the past what documents the irresponsibility, demagogy and
hypocrisy of the DG OIE and his staff dedicating more attention to problems of
secondary international importance such as local animal welfare, food hygiene,
etc. The above mentioned statement on
the effort to improve the speed of information disseminated throughout the
world is only mendacious propaganda as many other OIE statements contrary to
the real activities, intentions and results. What is the value of
so delayed data? It seems
that the OIE HQs staff is not able to
cope with their main responsibilities or the delay is deliberate trick to
complicate decision-making process on animal commodities import (providing
latest “fresh” data with 3 year delay from the
end of reported year, i.e. by three
years later than in the past before computer era !).
In March 2007 the WAHID is almost empty as far as 2005
data are concerned (the last available data are from 2004 in HANDISTAT II today
replaced by WAHID)! How can CVOs of importing countries decide on import
conditions having empty hands for normal risk assessment (not considering the fantasy of the OIE risk
assessment nonsense methodology)?
12.4 The WAHID, overloaded
by enormous data of secondary or no importance for international trade, is contradictory to normal risk assessment
practice (not to the OIE tricky methodology) of importing countries when
providing them minimum or zero data on diseases’ occurrence in exporting
countries. The question is to whom the WAHID serves ? The answer is simple:
to the most influential countries not
being able to guarantee to export healthy animals and innocuous animal products,
i.e. free of diseases/pathogens !
12.5 If we look in the WAHID component called “Country information” then again there are
missing
extremely important data on disease investigation activities (size
of surveys). It is not distinguished if the absolute data are collected ad hoc or if they represent the results
of sampling etiological investigations (active surveys). The absolute data are
therefore strongly underestimated (unreal = false) and do not correspond at all
with the diseases’ occurrence reality ! This is valid for all
the countries and from international trade aspect first of all for major
exporting countries. Systematic publication of data not corresponding with the
diseases’ occurrence reality obviously represents other trick of the OIE = deliberate
cheating of importing countries providing them false information to “facilitate
trade”.
Some countries simply have not sent any report on animal
health situation. What to have this “non-information” system not providing
necessary information for ? This fact is
much more serious when among the “non-informing” countries belong also the
major exporting ones ! Other serious deficiency of the WAHID system is caused
by the reduced number of reported diseases due to national systems containing only fragments of
the OIE list of internationally reportable diseases. Not notifiable
diseases missing in the national systems = information missing also in the
global WAHID system. This tactics not to report information on all
international reportable diseases is a further trickery of exporting countries
= no information = “disease doesn’t exists” = easy export with the OIE
international veterinary documents admitting diseases/pathogens export.
12.6 Instead to collect and publish data on real active
surveillance, i.e. number of specific etiological investigations, WAHID
presents only the words “general surveillance” = saying
nothing ! Also when informing on “targeted surveillance” the data on
its size are missing. The OIE has always avoided to collect this kind of
epizootiologicaly extraordinary important quantitative data obviously due to
the fear of major exporting countries’ discovery of not yet known cases
(outbreaks) and thus to complicate, i.e. to reduce or even avoid export
possibilities.
Examples from OIE WAHID
website, dated
WAHID
Animal Health Situation:
WAHID Animal Health Situation: “
WAHID Animal Health Situation: United Kingdom 2005: Again the majority of internationally
reportable diseases are not notifiable in this “ever model” country! Not notifiable
= no disease occurrence ?! E.g. enterovirus encephalomyelitis, both
screwworms, porcine brucellosis, anthrax,
Aujeszky’s disease, bovine brucellosis, bovine cysticercosis, classical swine
fever, enzootic bovine leukosis, foot-and-mouth disease (obviously WAHID’s one
of many professional absurdities),
highly path. avian influenza, Maedi-visna, porcine cysticercosis, etc. Further 27
important diseases “for which no information has been provided”, e.g.
paratuberculosis, leptospirosis, echinococcosis, IBR/IPV, transmissible
gastroenteritis, etc. !
WAHID Animal Health Situation: United States 2005: Again the majority of internationally
reportable diseases are not officially notifiable in this country! Not notifiable = no control ! E.g. anthrax (1997-2005),
atrophic rhinitis of swine, bluetongue, bovine cysticercosis, echinococcosis,
enzootic bovine leukosis, IBR/IPV, leptospirosis, Marek’s disease, myxomatosis,
paratuberculosis, porcine cysticercosis, transmissible gastroenteritis,
trichinellosis, varroosis, etc.
WAHID information on nationally not notifiable diseases
= information of zero value for member country governments ! Not notifiable
diseases = WAHID no information for importing countries when deciding on animal
import. How can importing
country assess diseases’ introduction risks through international trade having
not any or minimum (usually unreliable and incomplete) data on diseases’
occurrence in exporting countries ?! What is the OIE Code risk
assessment nonsense “methodology” for ?
Note: In 2001-2004 the world was
alarmed by the
This case calls for the
international definition of the bioterror and “biological
weapon”. On the
12.7 Never in the history the global animal health
information system funded in 1957 has been converted in an incredible
mess based on pseudoscientific, non-professional and illogical nonsense
called WAHID based on garbage in = garbage out. It is obvious that any system
of this type depends on the professional quality, quantity, completeness and
usefulness of the reported data. Unfortunately, actual WAHID represents an
absolute disinformation of the member countries, in particular of the importing
countries, and continue in the OIE system
significantly reduced in 1996. The impressive web forms such as colours,
tables and different combinations of the data cannot replace or compensate at
all the missing
key information on occurrence
characteristics of all internationally reportable diseases threatening
importing countries.
OIE WAHID website on
12.8 The component “Country
information – animal health situation” is specified:” This lists every
OIE-listed disease and indicates whether it has been reported as present or
absent from the country in the specific time period, based on six-monthly
reports.” These kinds of “reports” represent a very primitive information
(better “no-information”) instead to inform on disease occurrence situation and
characteristics. This kind of reporting presence by “+” only installed
(dictated) by the OIE “specialists” in 1996 to facilitate trade, would be
acceptable perhaps at the beginning of the 20th century and not
today in computer information era.
E.g. the WAHID doesn’t distinguish at all exceptional
case in imported animal (in quarantine) from e.g. ubiquitous occurrence affecting
millions of animals representing quite different situations and risks. This kind of
difference is comprehensible to any person (even not knowing read and write) with the exception of the OIE
staff and “experts” considering themselves as infallible “world superscientists”.
This unbelievable degradation
of global animal health information system was unimaginable when as the
Director General, OIE was Dr L. Blajan
(France) having rich practical experience with national public veterinary
service management and international animal trade and strictly observing the
anti-epizootic mission of the OIE (what is missing today).
12.9 The major confusion demonstrating absolute lack of veterinary
professionalism of the authors is represented by the WAHID component called “Country sanitary situation comparison”.
In the above mentioned “OIE Press release” signed by Maria Zampaglione, there
is following text: ”Comparative disease
status between two countries can help define health hazards linked to the trade
of live animals and animal products between countries.” Unfortunately, this
component form represents a top of professional nonsense ! It tries
to copy the original HANDISTATUS (before taking it over and significant reduction
and deformation by the OIE) component on
the same subject. However, at that time the programme provided very practical
concise comparing only the differences and detailed epizootiological
characteristics of international importance related to particular commodity
(see 11.5 d) what is absolutely unknown in the WAHID.
In the original HANDISTATUS developed by Dr Theresa
Bernardo in 1991 (see chapter 11) the country sanitary comparison between
exporting and importing countries was addressed to particular commodities
comparing the diseases occurrence informing about their epizootiological
characteristics such as: suspected but not confirmed; exceptional occurrence;
low sporadic occurrence; enzootic occurrence; high occurrence; serological
evidence and/or isolation of causative agent, no clinical disease, disease
exists; distribution and occurrence unknown; confined to certain regions;
ubiquitous; recognized in country for the first time and only in imported
animals (quarantine). The most important diseases were presented also according
to the pathogen strain types (i.e. 7 types of the foot-and-mouth disease – see 4.3) and particular animal susceptible species
affected. These kinds of very practical and needed information have been
missing at all in the whole post-SPS OIE information systems, including the new
WAHID, thanks to deliberate criminal reduction of epizootiological data to
facilitate (support) export of diseases/pathogens abusing OIE risk assessment
methods.
12.10 First
nonsense is the “classification” of the hazards: “Probable hazards”, “Possible hazards” and “Unlikely to be hazards”. Why probably ? Why possible ? Why
unlikely ? The communicable diseases and
pathogens’ for the OIE WAHID do not represent any normal hazard ?! Then
what is sanitary hazard ?! Any transmissible animal
diseases and their pathogens are sanitary
hazards !!!
This WAHID nonsense is fitting
to the OIE risk assessment tricks to minimize protective measures in importing countries against
diseases/pathogens introduction! How can the OIE “classify” the hazards without
the knowledge of real situation in trading countries ? Every case is different
! This trickery once again confirms the OIE policy not admitting trade in healthy animals and
pathogen-free animal products ! The OIE is imposing only the trade
exporting diseases/pathogens to “safeguard” international trade and not to safeguard animal and human health !
“Normal
hazard” = for WAHID and its “armchair” theoretical pseudoscientific authors is absolutely unknown
phenomenon in spite of its daily practical reality, experience and application.
WAHID artificial pseudo definitions, non scientifically,
logically and practically justified:
“Probable hazards” = “The following diseases occur in the
exporting country. They should therefore probably be considered as hazard for
trade”.
“Possible hazards” = “No information available for the
following diseases, either in the exporting, the importing country or both.
More information is required to determine if these diseases may be considered
as a hazard”.
“Unlikely to be hazards” = “The following diseases are either absent
from both countries, or present in the importing
country, and are therefore unlikely to be trade hazard. However, some
diseases may still be considered a hazard, particularly if the is a disease
control program in place in the importing country.”
This stupidity demonstrates
that the authors (computer specialists and the OIE HQs supervising staff) have
not any idea on the field reality, practical risks, information needs of the
importing countries and on biological characteristics of individual diseases.
They simply play with different software
components without respecting the real need and possibility of the OIE member
country governments that should be the only target for any animal health international
information system. They have been continuously theoretically developing new
and new systems without any analysis of the existing and previous systems
effectiveness and experience and of the member country governments real
practical needs and possibilities of animal health protection and disease
control. They do not respect scientific methodology based on objective
analyses, pilot testing of practical application under real conditions and
evaluating the consequences – usefulness and cost-benefit effectivity, in our
case the impact on animal population health.
There are many OIE and FAO analyses of animal diseases’
impact on trade but no any analysis of trade impact on
animal and human health.
12.11 In the very long list of all reportable diseases it
can be found information on sanitary situation in exporting country only by the
term “clinical disease” !?! For international trade there are not important
animals with clinical symptoms only but all animals affected (carriers) by
respective pathogens (usually the majority of diseases cases are
represented by subclinical forms – they
are the most dangerous for disease spreading!). The
most important information on diseases’ occurrence situation are missing at all (i.e. criminally blinding importing
countries) what corresponds with the OIE anti-sanitary policy to provide importing
countries with minimum up to zero information or with conscious disinformation
(camouflage) not to complicate relatively easy and very profiting trade of the
major exporting countries, regardless of their sanitary situation.
Examples: WAHID January 2007 web
on Jul-Dec. 2005: Exporting from France to Czech
republic – “Probable hazards” – in
about 40 diseases “clinical disease” i.e. not any data on disease occurrence
reality necessary for import decision; “Possible
hazard” – in about 40 disease “ No information
available”; “Unlikely to
be hazard” – two pages of diseases (including paratuberculosis – clinical
diseases, bovine brucellosis – last report in 2003, bluetongue – last report in
2005, cap/ovi brucel.(not B.ovis) – last report in 2003, pullorum disease –
last report in 2004, etc. – i.e. chronic diseases not yet eradicated are
presented as “unlikely to be hazard”
when de facto there is a very risky
hazard documented by the export of these
diseases in the past!)
This example demonstrates that the WAHID is the source
of professional nonsense when including existing chronic diseases among “unlikely to be hazard” when just these
diseases are the most risky due to their subclinical forms and difficulty to
control and eradicate them. In these diseases the lack of ad hoc reported cases during short period doesn’t mean not existing
occurrence !
Examples see in paragraph 3.7
and 8.2.
12.12 How can the importing countries assess the diseases’
introduction risk to import from a country when the WAHID has no any
information on this country diseases’ occurrence ?! This kind of gap in global animal health
information system has almost never happened ! The hazard is also to import
from those countries not reporting any or only minimal data on diseases’ occurrence
situation.
Example: If we look for the comparison of sanitary situation between
any importing country and New Zealand as exporting one then we can find in
WAHID website (dated 3 February 2007) for 2005: “There is no report for New Zealand”. (The absurd theory of hazards and tricky risk
assessment, applied in the OIE documents, originated in the New Zealand – today
occupying key OIE posts: Dr Barry O’Neil, President, Office
International of Epizootics and Dr S. C. MacDiarmid, Secretary General, OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission; one would expect that at
least the most influential exporting countries continuously giving lessons to all
the world would provide the OIE with necessary information (even the most
reduced ones). The same “information” is
on
12.13 The classification of the hazard is not only
artificial but demonstrates that the authors
have no idea about communicable disease characteristics, in particular about
the disease spread risks. They do not distinguish (do not understand what must
know any student of veterinary medicine) acute and chronic diseases lasting for
years before their eradication. WAHID declares as the diseases with “Unlikely to be hazards” those existing
in exporting country for years (not being eradicated) even when the last report
was less than a year before.
If we look for the comparison
with the
12.14 The only
reason for this “classification” is to support the export of non-healthy
animals and non-pathogen-free animal products abusing the criminal theory
that for the international trade doesn’t exist any real sanitary hazards = the
highly profiting diseases/pathogens export can continue without limitation !
The importing countries have not any chance to protest against this
antisanitary and thievish OIE policy imposed by the most influential exporting
countries.
The main
reason of the WAHID is again to avoid importing countries’ requirements for
full sanitary guarantee of exported
animal commodities, i.e. for diseases/pathogens free trade! And this cannot be admitted by the major
exporting countries and their lackeys in the OIE HQs.
What about the elaboration of disease introduction risk
assessment according to the stupid methodology of the OIE Code ? The importing
country must elaborate the risk assessment for all in the WAHID mentioned
diseases, i.e. for all the “hazards” or only for the “possible hazards” and
“probable hazards” ? Or there is not any
need for any risk assessment when according to the WAHID the real hazards do
not exist and the animal trade can
continue without any protective measures ? This is obviously the main objective
of all the endeavour of the OIE animal health destructive policy.
12.15 The OIE has stopped to support full sanitary quality trade becoming
the main organizer of international spreading of animal diseases !.
The consequences of this criminal policy during last decade caused dead and
suffering of incalculable millions of animals and humans due to pathogens imported thanks the OIE antisanitary
and antihuman dirty policy.
12.16 The WAHID, in spite of being the “newest” programme,
is lacking international numeric
classification of animal diseases as it was normal a decade ago (up to
1998) and as it is absolutely normal in any modern international information
system, not only in the medicine. The WAHID list of diseases represents a mishmash mixing different
animal species, different families of
animal kingdom and the diseases of very different importance for international
trade. The “no-system” has nothing
to do with the OIE demagogically declared “transparency” ! Different lists of
diseases are ordered according to English alphabet not respecting: other international languages, logical diseases
groupings, disease importance, susceptible animal species, disease different characteristics of their
agents (types, subtypes, exotic strains, resistance, virulence, etc.) The
WAHID providing minimal or zero useful information signifies much more
unnecessary administration and paper work than before, wasting time and money
in all member countries.
12.17 The OIE data on the simplest indicator, i.e. the size of domestic animal populations,
normally available in national livestock statistics do not corresponds with the
report of country government sent by the ministries to United Nations. This
discrepancy is not justified. The animal
population data available in FAOSTAT information system can be easily copied on-line
in WAHID. Unfortunately, both last OIE Directors Generals didn’t consider any
proposals sent by the author of this paper. What data are correct when on the
same subject two international organizations publish different values ? How can
be trusted WAHID data on animal disease occurrence, particularly when the
reporting is only ad hoc. In WAHID strongly predominates the statement “no
information available”.
Examples from OIE WAHID website, dated
12.18 Zoonoses in
Humans represent other component of the WAHID. The previous experimental
table was converted in normal very useful form. The authors merit the appreciation. Unfortunately, the majority
of the member countries (even the most influential countries) have not sent any
data on zoonoses in humans and therefore the WAHID provides minimum
information, if any.
Examples from OIE WAHID
website, dated
WAHID for France, United
Kingdom, New Zealand, United States, Australia, Germany, Canada, Russia,
Bulgaria (having Dr Belev at OIE HQs as DG OIE Adviser), Italy (CVO even in the
Ministry of Health !), etc., 2005: No information.
See also
example in the paragraph 8.2.
The calculation of the rate of
cases per 100,000 population is absolutely
confusing and not reflecting at all the reality which is much worse than
the number of reported cases. The exact number of the cases are not known and
therefore this kind of calculation as well as of ranking has not any practical
sense.
Example: "It
is assumed that, for every case of salmonellosis recorded in humans in the
12.19 Laboratory
capability to find a laboratory
capable of performing a particular test. It seems that this data are
included as a new component in the global animal health information system.
Therefore, the data were not yet available. Similarly the component on vaccine production. The problem is that
the collection of these data will be extremely difficult and laborious,
incomplete (= disinformation), in permanent change, drugging away national
services from their much more important work regarding diseases’ surveillance,
monitoring, control and eradication. These “data” cannot replace the guarantee
of pathogen-free animal exports what is the main global problem.
12.20 Disease
control measures. The WAHID obviously has not yet processed relevant data
of the year 2005, i.e. after more than one year ! What this kind of “data” or
more exactly “no data” are for ? This extraordinary prolonged delay has never
before happened even in the time of manual processing of collected data !
Examples from OIE WAHID
website, dated
WAHID for
WAHID for
12.21 The WAHID, due to missing the key professional information on diseases’ occurrence
characteristics, in spite of super-combination ad absurdum of available strongly incomplete data, provides much
less information on diseases’ occurrence than the previous global common
systems of the FAO/OIE/WHO and than the original HANDISTAT - really user-friendly software (see 6.1). The
WAHID, overloaded by a lot of ballast
- components of secondary or no importance for importing countries, continues
with the same professional content deficiencies as the OIE HANDISTATUS II (see 11). The WAHID from the
informative value point of view suffers the consequences of the significant
reduction of disease occurrence indicators imposed deliberately by the OIE
already in 1996 (see 3.4). The WAHID represents only one of many steps of the
OIE to foggy real epizootiological situation in the major exporting countries misinforming the importing ones
and thus to facilitate = support diseases/pathogens spreading through
international trade ! This can be confirmed also by incredible statements of
the most influential persons in the OIE (see 6.11) that in
order to safeguard international trade the knowledge of diseases’ occurrence
characteristics in exporting countries is for importing countries not necessary
!? Then why
to have global almost “non-informative” information system such as the non-user-friendly
WAHID ?
12.22 The WAHID similarly as the OIE significantly
reduced information system from 1996 (to
facilitate animal export) contains less information
on disease occurrence situation than the joint FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health
Yearbook programme five decades ago !
And disease occurrence situation is the most important characteristic
for international trade, namely
for importing country decision on veterinary conditions based on the assessment
of diseases/pathogens introduction risks ! From the key criterion point of view
the WAHID similarly as the HANDISTAT II represents backward step instead of desirable progress.
12.23 The WAHID
continues with the same deliberate information reduction (= disinformation) as
the OIE introduced in 1996 to “cover” the unfavourable reality in the major
exporting countries unable to control internationally reportable diseases at
home and to guarantee pathogen-free export.
The WAHID continues with: serious gaps in the list of
internationally reportable diseases, with extreme reduction of regular
reporting on animal disease occurrence
in exporting countries, with the abolition of regular reporting on animal
disease import cases avoiding the analysis of disease spread through
international trade, with zero or minimal knowledge on animal diseases’
occurrence in exporting countries, with zero or minimal reliable data for objective disease situation
analysis and import risk assessment, zero information on the frequency and
types of disease investigations in
exporting countries, etc. The WAHID doesn’t distinguish at all the basic indicators
such as disease cases or outbreaks
incidence (new cases) and prevalence (situation at a given time) representing
two quite different values of different informative importance !
This difference is known to any student of veterinary medicine ! This
difference is obviously not known to the DG OIE, his staff and his
self-declared “world top specialists for disease risk assessment” !
12.24 The responsibility for this global nonsense in
animal population medicine is first of all of the leading “veterinarians” in
the OIE HQs admitting to spent global taxpayers money for wasting time and
resources instead to assist effectively in anti-epizootic activities. The
software programmer can process only data as provided by the animal health
professionals following their instructions. Garbage
data can produce only garbage outcome. This is exactly the case of WAHID as far as disease
occurrence – the most important information - is concerned. The WAHID will
obviously serve only to the pseudoscientific “armchair” paper theoreticians to
publish collected data and not to member country governments for effective
solving their anti-epizootic problems and for avoiding diseases/pathogens
spreading through international trade.
What are the reasons to publish every year (now even every six-monthly period using
nice colours but complicating unreasonably annual comparative studies) the same
report (“+”) without any corresponding action for disease eradication or for
stopping risky export. Using “+” without disease occurrence grading (as it was
before) devaluates also previous useful multiannual animal diseases’ status to
can assess the disease history and trends. The OIE is not supporting at all
anti-epizootic actions as it was before 1995. It looks that the OIE prevailing
form is the paperwork, playing with the computer, collecting very problematic data
(for computer storing or shelving ?) without any practical follow-up actions,
i.e. strategy “doing nothing” against animal diseases. Then the OIE information
system is serving mainly (or exclusively) to maximal profit of exporting
countries regardless of animal and human health in importing countries.
Example.
12.25 Better to abolish this non-informative
“information” pseudosystem on disease occurrence than to cheat, in service of
major exporters, member country governments and to consciously support animal
diseases/pathogens’ spreading in the world. The serious deficiency of the OIE
system has caused that other international organizations have established their
own animal disease information system (e.g. FAO – TADinfo, EMPRES Information
System -Empres-i, FAO Regional information systems, European Union information
system, PAHO information system, etc.) requiring also animal health data from
the Chief Veterinary Officers. The duplicities and collecting different
indicators data bother and overload uselessly public veterinary services at all
managerial levels reducing the resources and time needed for practical field
anti-epizootic actions. If we summarize these useless losses globally then it
would be enormous sum. Nonsense fantasies of formal super combinations based on
not reliable and not complete data cannot replace missing objective professional
contents as is the need for anti-epizootic decisions of the member country
governments. Where are the times when it was only one common global animal
health information system providing more information on diseases’ occurrence
than the HANDISTAT II and now the WAHID ?
Unofficial data on animal
disease occurrence were published in different documents such as excellent
“Animal disease occurrence” produced by
the Commonwealth Agriculture Bureaux (CIB), Commission of the European
Communities containing abstracts covering every branch of agriculture science
available in different journals.
12.26
The critical words are not addressed to the OIE operational information system
established by Dr R. Vittoz and Dr L. Blajan (Directors General who did not
betrayed the original OIE mission as it happened later) decades ago what has
proved as very useful as far as the most dangerous diseases are concerned. The
use of computer facilities has helped to increase the speed of the information
sent to and from the OIE HQs. The only problem is that these operational
reports usually do not indicate the country origin of imported infected animals
or animal products to can organize action for avoiding the repetition of this
kind of disease export.
12.27
One should appreciate the effort to improve global animal health information
system. The problem is that modern computerization of available data in the
case of the WAHID has not brought more
professional information on diseases’ occurrence (one would expect at
least as it was decades ago before deliberate destruction of previous functioning
system by the OIE) for better protection of importing countries and more
effective international control of communicable diseases. It is obvious that
software programmer cannot repair or compensate serious deficiencies as far as
animal health aspects are concerned. The full responsibility for the
professional content is of the OIE HQs staff and its “experts”. It seems that
the main (or only) interest was to minimize key information on disease
situation in exporting countries and maximize ballast data and thus
complicating decision making of the importing countries and facilitating the
export. The best possible software and websites developed by the best possible
programmers cannot replace missing key data !
12.28
The WAHID continues to collect and disseminate animal disease occurrence
information not distinguishing e.g. imported
only cases or exceptional cases and ubiquitous disease distribution ! Even
any illiterate person in the world is able to understand that there is very
significant difference between one
diseased animal and millions of diseased animals. Even any illiterate person in
the world understands that any disease risk starts in its origin territory and
population. There are exceptions: self-declared “world specialists” of the OIE
not applying the simplest logic or
applying consciously criminal anti-sanitary policy of supporting
unscrupulously the mass spread of animal
diseases/pathogens through international
trade. This organized diseases’ globalization, for major profit of the
exporting countries and their businessmen, could be understood as the OIE
contribution to the ecological damage of the planet making worse the consequences
of the global warming.
12.29
Obviously the WAHID belongs also to the OIE artificial theatre, combined with unbelievable demagogy,
to avoid international trade in really healthy animals and pathogen-free animal
products through blinding importing countries about the unfavourable animal
disease occurrence in exporting countries. The data computerization is
absolutely necessary, however it must be avoided any absurd super combination (modelling
mania), even if it is theoretically correct.
As the serious warning should be the irresponsible application
of perhaps theoretically correct computerized models (but quite isolated from
the reality such as EPIMAN-FMD produced in New Zealand) for the control of the
foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2001 causing unbelievable
losses of almost 10 million animals.
12.30
On the other hand the WAHID contains a new very useful component “Disease outbreak maps”: exact
localization of reported very dangerous diseases’ outbreaks in global,
regional, national and local colour maps based on data identifying geographical
parameters – longitude and latitude. This system represents a significant
progress in monitoring global and national epizootiological situation as far as
new disease outbreaks’ localization. The relevant improved questionnaire “Exceptional epidemiological events” is
useful for operational reporting of new cases of the most dangerous animal
diseases. Other component merits also appreciation: rapid finding actual and
previous reports on emergency diseases
including location of the outbreaks.
About two decades ago a similar system was developed
by PANAFTOSA (author: Dr Vicente M. Astudillo) in
The
problem is that formally correct indicators in the tables often do not contain corresponding
professional data in the WAHID maps = lost of the reliability. Not all
information on disease occurrence presented on the maps often do not
correspond with other parts of the WAHID system, mainly due
to missing logical control by the responsible (irresponsible ?) OIE Editor.
These cases reconfirm that the WAHID is not professionally reliable confusing
member country governments and thus contributing indirectly to disease spreading
through international trade.
Example: The all world knows that in
Also the “Summary
of Immediate notification and Follow-ups” looks interesting however the
data of “Total” and “Grand Total” do not represent at all the reality which is many
times higher (e.g. in some chronic wide-spread diseases with lower grade of
clinical manifestation the reality is hundred or even thousand times higher).
This kind of incomplete data are confusing decision-makers and conducing to
absolute underestimation of particular diseases’ economic importance and to
loosing necessary support for specific anti-epizootic actions. This kind of
data, without any proper comments indicating that the truth is quite different,
are therefore very
dangerous for anti-epizootic policy and international trade. Other
deficiency is represented by the fact that the data are only on new cases
during the period and not on the situation at the end of the period what
is of extraordinary importance as the latest information for importing country
decision-making.
12.31
As far as the veterinary manpower
is concerned, the OIE changed illogically the structure of the indicators
(without exact definitions) not
respecting at all the basic principle in statistics such as to keep time
series for comparative evaluation of the data values development (i.e. in this case considering previous
versions of the HANDISTATus software and OIE World Animal Health yearbooks). The
WAHID includes some new indicators without major importance for the importing
country decisions. The OIE abolished previous clear cut definitions of
individual indicators without any replacement and therefore every country
reports something else. The absolute confusion can be documented, e.g. by the
facts that the numeric data on „Animal
Health Public Veterinarians“ are exactly
the same as the data on „Laboratories
Government Veterinarians“ !?. This is something incredible, even the basic school children are able to
differentiate similar data.
Examples:
The WAHID for 2006
contains the same data on „Animal
Health Public Veterinarians“ and on
„Laboratories Government
Veterinarians“, e.g.
Other WAHID 2006 information nonsense is on the
The component entitled “Veterinarians and
paraveterinarians” was practically without any data (March 2007) = empty. The
last information is from 2004 in the HANDISTAT II being replaced by the WAHID.
For 2005 there was only a long list of all the countries and in the column “Personnel”
were only data from Algeria and Swaziland while the rest was N/A = “data not
available” !
The information on veterinary manpower and
its structure is decisive for importing country decision on veterinary
conditions considering the ability of the CVO and public veterinary service to
control animal disease situation and trade, to supervise private veterinarians
issuing export certificates and to guarantee full sanitary quality of the
exported animals and their products !
It demonstrates once more that the WAHID
serves only to major exporting countries, also in this component concealing the
fact that they have very weak government veterinary services unable to control
effectively animal health situation in their home countries and to guarantee
sanitarily innocuous export of animals and animal products !
More information in http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/vetmanpower.htm.
12.32
The other professional nonsense is represented by the definition of the Livestock Units = „250 kg livestock standard unit calculated on the basis of average
weights of different species“. The OIE-Australian authors-theoreticians didn‘t study any relevant documents and
literature to know that international reporting on livestock population is based
on data according to the number of individual animal species. How the OIE WAHID
Livestock Units can be calculated when the basic comparative data on the
species weight are internationally not available (not reported obligatorily by
the member country governments) ? There is not any justification for this
“novelty” when for decades exist conversion rates for individual species of
domestic animals. Why the authors didn‘t used existing normal international
systems (see the OIE publications *). Obviously, they want to be in all aspects
original while complicating ad absurdum everything following the
OIE policy of deliberately causing
systematic information confusions of importing countries (to „facilitate
export“ ?). What the OIE WAHID Livestock Units nonsense data per km2
and ranking are for ? Which government needs this fantasy when many of them do
not know even the numbers of food producing animals in their home countries (see paragraph 8.7) ?
*) Example: V. Kouba: Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 2003, 22 (3), 899-908.
12.33
Instead to test widely the new information system under practical conditions
and in between to continue with the existing one (HANDISTAT II) avoiding the
gaps in country information, the OIE and its bureaucratic “armchair” theoreticians
started their nonsense system immediately causing
incredible information mess in the whole world with very negative consequences
for importing countries due to lacking necessary information on exporting
countries animal diseases and veterinary manpower data to identify correctly
trade protective measures. The WAHID continues to cover up consciously the
truth on sanitary situation in exporting countries following the OIE
anti-sanitary policy facilitating trade at the expense of importing countries’
health.
12.34
This WAHID case reconfirms the top demagogy and hypocrisy of the OIE leaders
repeating systematically that all OIE documents are scientifically based (“hundred
times repeated lie becomes the truth” – Goebels’ Nazi propaganda concept)
what is absolutely not the truth. The scientific approach principle obviously
is not valid for the OIE, its documents and methods (in spite of having special
Scientific Department) ! At the same time the OIE Code requires that the disease introduction risk assessment to be
elaborated by the importing countries must be scientifically based.
12.35
The basic question is how far a given
information system is useful for the users and how far it is user-friendly. In
this case the m a i n u s e r
s are the member country g o v e r n m e
n t s and not individual institutions
and professionals. Because the key OIE problem is international trade in
animals and animal products, the governments need to have all necessary data (exactly
as reported) on particular exporting country in o n e
p l a c e, as it was before, and not spread (ad absurdum) in many different parts of the information system as
it is in the WAHID !!
To
exploit reported data combining them according to different criteria can be
welcome only as secondary outputs for those who could be interested in them.
Only as interesting information can be used “List of countries by disease
situation”, “Immediate notification and follow-up report performance”
(containing Event-Report, Event-Submit, Total and Follow-up Report) , etc.
Notes: In the “Immediate notification and follow-up
report performance” there is interesting information (if it is truth?) that
Canada submitted to OIE a disease event report after 136 days from disease
beginning (notified officially 89 days from the disease start) ! The data in
colour e.g. in “Disease timelines” cannot be printed by normal black ink
printer generally available in the majority of veterinary institutions
(coloured columns are left empty).
13.
New OIE World Animal Health yearbooks – provide
much less of useful professional information on animal infection occurrence
than before computer era
13.1 In March 2008 the Chief Veterinary Officers of the
OIE member countries finally received the “new” World Animal Health yearbooks 2005
and 2006, i.e. with about 3 years delay ! This is similar case as several years
ago when the OIE was changing the HANDISTAT software during 3 years letting
member country governments without necessary information for decision making
about international trade and measures. This kind of information lost any value
and represents wasting time and money reflecting absolute irresponsibility of
the OIE HQs staff well paid by the
member country governments.
13.2 One would expect that the new World Animal Health
would bring much more useful information for member country government decision
on international trade and animal infection control. Unfortunately, the OIE is
continuing to complicate even more the whole information system (better
no-information one) reducing significantly already reduced previous information
“system”. The authors absolutely do not respect the needs of the member
countries, mainly importing ones and instead to enrich useful information they
reduce them to minimum and add a lot of ballast (perhaps useful for papers of some
armchair self-declared “veterinary epidemiologist” dominated the OIE HQs)
documenting once again that they have not any idea on the animal population
health reality, practice, problems and needs.
13.3 First of all the OIE reduces two-volume World
Animal Health yearbook into one-volume publication eliminating
the most useful and interesting first volume – Reports on Animal Health
Status and Methods for Disease Control and Prevention (in 2004 of 412
pages). Every country described the main animal infection problems and their solution including experience
useful for the others. The texts and data were copied exactly as received
without any OIE HQs “improvements (?)”. Elimination of these extremely useful
information sent by the member country governments for being disseminated
testifies absolute contemning of
importing country governments in order “to facilitate of non-pathogen-free
export”. It could be that the OIE so called “experts” do not like texts due to inability
to processed them statistically. It demonstrates once again that in the OIE HQs
there is nobody qualified to be able to defend the interest of the member
country governments against irresponsible theoreticians from the OIE dominating
countries. They are experimenting at the
global level (not at home country of the authors where this nonsense would
never be accepted), regardless of the usefulness, without any risk
assessment of the consequences, without any practical testing and proof and not
considering at all wasting time of hundreds of thousands veterinarians and
enormous amount of money in all the countries’ tax payers. This unbelievable
situation in the OIE started immediately after the WTO/SPS in 1995 to
“facilitate non-pathogen-free export”.
13.4 On the other hand the second volume was expanded
without adding any real information on animal infection occurrence. The table
contain enormous space used for empty or semi-empty pages. So called
statisticians and software developers following the OIE HQs instructions
created a mess of a lot of new data confusing member country governments. The
main information on animal infection occurrence is still close to zero = “+”,
i.e. without giving the picture of the real situation and its development. All
other “ad hoc” collected data, not
corresponding with the country reality, are not necessary for the import
condition decision making (= ballast). The comments in the chapter are fully valid for the “new information
miracle” of the OIE. Practically the same superficial information published in
previous WAH issues can be found also in the new WAH with the difference of
significantly increased number of individual country pages. This is economics !
Example: The table on
disease/infection presence in
13.5
The “new WAH yearbook is providing less
animal infection occurrence data than before 1995. What the country governments
need for their decision making on the import and risk assessment? Not only the
presence or absence of the infection (this is only indicator which survived the
drastic deliberate reduction in the middle of the 1990s). The rest of
indicators the OIE eliminated in spite of their extraordinary importance for
the member countries decision-making (see also
chapters 6 and 7). For this purpose is absolutely necessary also to know
data about specific etiological investigations (surveys) to be able to assess
the reliability of the infection occurrence reliablity (it is obvious that ad hoc reported data value are far from
the reality what are x-times higher). The
exporting countries have fear of revealing the weakness of veterinary services
not able to control effectively epizootiological situation due to lack of
necessary etiological surveys and due to insufficient knowledge of this
situation.
Example see in 12.18.
13.6
The authors have not any idea about the epizootiology or veterinary
epidemiology. The absolute data are base
on ad hoc reporting, i.e. are significantly of minor value than in the reality.
In spite of this the tables present
these data as the reality to confuse importing countries not obtaining real
data or qualified estimates. The number of outbreaks is subdivided into two
columns “New outbreaks” and “Total outbreaks” without any clear definitions.
Logically, there must be the distinction between new cases (incidence) and case
at the end of the reported period (moment
prevalence) which is obviously difficult the authors to understand it. All
numeric data not corresponding with reality are not necessary. They serve only
to confuse the readers of the nine numeric columns. The detailed information on
the most dangerous diseases have been available in current operational
reporting to the OIE.
13.7
Again, the OIE publishes animal health data without any logical control
creating more and more the mess to confuse importing countries on animal
infection occurrence reality in the exporting ones. The data on the same
indicators published in the OIE World Animal Health yearbooks are of differrent
values than in the OIE WAHID ! The OIE proved to be the world champion in
confusing the end-users. It would be
better to abolish this information non-sense and go back the the original
HANDISTAT I and pre-SPS animal health yearbooks. The main necessary information
on animal infection occurrece grades are missing at all !
Example: OIE World Animal Health 2006, pages 313-318,
New Zealand 7 pages table (with very small characters): Bovine
tuberculosis – “cervidae” as well as “fauna” instead of “+” empty box while
in the previous yearbooks was reported their presence. Almost all presented
diseases are with symbols “… No information available”. In the part “Diseases
absent or never occurred 2006” there are 4 pages (incredible waste!) having no
any additional data of information value. Varroosis
of honey bees merits attention – reporting its presence and “No information
available”; in spite of not knowing this situation the NZ is exporting the bees
in the world including in the European Union countries without any reliable
guarantee of being free of this and other bee infections.
14.
Conclusion
14.1 Never during the last half a century of the global animal health
information system has been converted into an incredible mess confusing all the
countries in the world as today !
The
OIE after the WTO/SPS has been reforming several times global animal health
information system introducing so called “improvements” that de facto were conducing to significantly
less and less information on animal
infection occurrence and its grades. The structure, indicators, definitions,
forms, questionnaires, deliveries systems, timing in data dissemination have
been always changed. This has been making impossible to elaborate time series
of reported data values and to produce comparative studies of the most
important information. In short, it has been created incredible mess deliberately
clouding “effectively” the information on exporting countries epizootiological
situation avoiding importing countries to elaborate the objective risk and to
correctly decide on respective import and identify sanitary conditions. The OIE demonstrated that it is
the unique global inter-governmental organization not respecting neither the
needs of the paying member country governments nor professional logic,
scientific approach nor practical application feasibility and sanitary/economic
consequences.
14.2
In the WAHID information system,
presented after long three years of missing OIE information on the member
country animal infection occurrence, the member country governments cannot find
neither necessary reliable information on animal infection occurrence grades
nor data on veterinary manpower responsible for international trade in the exporting
countries. For international trade and
anti-epizootic actions the member countries need from the OIE first of
all reliable information on animal infection occurrence, mainly in exporting
countries threatening the others?
14.3
The OIE WAHID (produced by
14.4 The irresponsible OIE didn’t consider that any change in the information systems requires the member country
to produce new questionnaires at all managerial levels, to change existing
software and to instruct enormous number of persons and that the new global
information system stabilization needs several years and costs a lot of money and work needed for practical anti-epizootic
actions.
14.5
This paper reconfirms once again the absolute
absence of reliability of the OIE processed information data !!! (This statement
is not valid for useful country text information published without any change
in the OIE World Animal Health yearbooks – last issue 2004 !).
14.6 Nobody from the OIE is carrying out any professional logical
control of the WAHID data (to eliminate nonsense information) before
distributing them as international official document to all the countries in
the world ! Therefore, all information from the OIE, needed mainly
to importing countries, must be understood as not reliable ones !
14.7 If the OIE is not able to provide full true, not distorted and not
confusing information on animal diseases’ occurrence necessary for member
country governments’ anti-epizootic decisions on effective sanitary import
conditions, then better to abolish this “non-information system” and go back to
the times of the original HANDISTAT, i.e. before WTO/SPS !
This
is obviously other argument for abolishing this dangerous organization or
complete replacing the OIE HQs staff by fix-term animal health specialists
internationally responsible, professionally competent, independent on any trade
lobby, corruption-proof and consistently defending the animal population health
in the world.