Dear Joseph
Thank you for your message. In relation to my comment: 'Arguably, WHO is uniquely positioned (or, at least, one of very few organisations that are so positioned) to develop robust and reliable international health guidance, including guidance on how countries can adapt and apply such guidance.'
You asked: "Why 'arguably', is /are there arguments about WHO guideline / recommendations?. I welcome some clarification and education on this, because I believe that in most / all LLMICs, WHO-generated guidelines / recommendations are taken as the Gold-Standard."
People have commented on how I can be overcautious with my language, and I sometimes qualify my statements with the word 'arguably'. Part of my intention is to invite debate (and I am grateful to you for starting debate on this topic). In this case, I completely agree with you Joseph that 'in most / all LLMICs, WHO-generated guidelines / recommendations are taken as the Gold-Standard'. Such guidelines are very, very special. Another point I made in my message is that it is important to differentiate publications where WHO is uniquely positioned, and other publications (where WHO may be spending time and money) where WHO is *not* uniquely positioned.
At a time when the United States, previously WHO's main funder, is withdrawing its support, it is salient to focus on WHO's core and unique strengths.
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org