
CDC map quietly confirms the Haitian cholera epidemic started by UN peacekeepers - nkurz
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2016/04/what_caused_haiti_s_cholera_epidemic_the_cdc_s_museum_knows_but_won_t_say.html
======
aroch
I'd just like to point out that the CDC itself has published papers detailing
the origins of the Haitian cholera strain:
[http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/7/11-0059_article](http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/7/11-0059_article)

As another example, Lee Katz, CDC's chief bioinformatician for the labs that
study diseases like cholera (Who, full disclosure, used to work with my lab on
Vibrio stuff):
[http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/4/e00398-13.short](http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/4/e00398-13.short)

There have been articles by other groups directly addressing the introduction
of cholera by aid workers. The CDC also talks about this issue directly during
conferences and presentations as an event that we need to learn from.

~~~
themartorana
Well that seems to completely invalidate the article's premise. Thanks for
this.

Now I just need somewhere else to direct my armchair rage...

~~~
mattkrause
Here's the actual quote from the CDC report linked above:

"Meille village hosted a MINUSTAH camp, which was set up just above a stream
flowing into the Artibonite River. Newly incoming Nepalese soldiers arrived
there on October 9, 12, and 16. The Haitian epidemiologists observed sanitary
deficiencies, including a pipe discharging sewage from the camp into the
river. Villagers used water from this stream for cooking and drinking.

On October 21, the epidemic was also investigated in several wards of
Mirebalais. Inhabitants of Mirebalais drew water from the rivers because the
water supply network was being repaired. Notably, prisoners drank water from
the same river, downstream from Meille. No other cause was found for the 34
cases and 4 deaths reported in the prison.

On October 31, it was observed that sanitary deficiencies in the camp had been
corrected. At the same time, daily incidence of cholera tended to decrease.
Afterwards, incidence rose again to reach a second peak on November 10 "

------
leroy_masochist
FWIW, I work in Haiti, have numerous friends in the UN mission here, and they
have long acknowledged this is true. Certainly Haitians know what happened.
Talk radio is a big thing here and they've been talking about it forever.

I think the article is probably technically correct in terms of the highest
levels of the CDC and UN being sensitive and slow-rolling the news...but I
wouldn't say it's as pervasive a cover-up as the article implies.

~~~
Captain_Usher
I was surprised to even see the article posted because I didn't think there
was a lot of doubt about this. I have no special knowledge of or interest in
cholera, Haiti, or the UN, but I've known since around this time last year
that the most recent outbreak was likely caused by UN peacekeepers improperly
handling sewage. I stumbled upon this knowledge by... reading about it on
Wikipedia. I wasn't even studying Haiti or the relief mission, I was just
_bored._ If there was a cover-up going on, it was apparently the worst cover-
up in history. Personally, I would bet on some knee-jerk untruths on top of a
heaping pile of incompetence rather than a real organized hush job, based on
having skimmed Wikipedia again to refresh my memory[0]. For instance, the
relief mission initially denied responsibility because they have sanitation
standards. I personally would have checked to make sure those standards
weren't being ignored before I used them as an excuse so a reporter couldn't
find out for me, which is exactly what happened (Note: MINUSTAH is the acronym
for the UN relief mission, it makes sense in French):

>MINUSTAH officials issued a press statement denying the possibility that the
base could have caused the epidemic, citing stringent sanitation standards.
The next day, October 27, reporter Jonathan M. Katz of the Associated Press
visited the base and found gross inconsistencies between the statement and the
base's actual conditions.

Later, they took groundwater samples ("despite UN assertions that it was not
concerned about a possible link between its soldiers and the disease") and
announced they tested negative. Lying about test results definitely sounds
like something you'd do during a cover-up, except apparently the tests weren't
even done right:

>However, an AP investigation showed that the tests were improperly done at a
laboratory in the Dominican Republic with no experience of testing for
cholera.

I poked around the article that quote cites[1], which claims the tests were
conducted at a regular hospital (with a surprisingly spiffy website: [2]) by
an obesity specialist. Apparently you'd want those tests run somewhere more
specialized because cholera is tricky and you get false negatives all the
time. I'm not sure how available those facilities are, maybe there
legitimately wasn't a better option, or maybe there was and somebody is just
really bad at their job. If there was a deliberate, coordinated deception
involved, I'd hope the conspirators would at least find a medical facility
that would give their story more credibility.

Attributions to malice or incompetence aside, it's definitely clear that the
relief mission and friends have not handled this event very well. There were
some amounts of stupefying incompetence and bald corruption, and they should
be held accountable regardless of what the proportions were. This extends
beyond the current cholera situation, we could just as easily be talking about
something like Cité Soleil, a large shantytown outside Port-au-Prince with a
history of extreme poverty and armed conflict. That said, the other side of
the story is that Haiti is an incredibly troubled country with a history of
natural disasters, unstable government, and terrible epidemics. Any country
would struggle with one of those, but Haiti wrestles with all of them at once.
An earthquake wipes out infrastructure, which allows disease to spread
unchecked, which hamstrings the economy, and so on. The relief mission is
there because Haiti sorely needs it, even if it sucks and Haitians deserve a
better one.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_cholera_outbreak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_cholera_outbreak)

[1]: [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40280944/ns/health/t/un-worries-
it...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40280944/ns/health/t/un-worries-its-troops-
caused-cholera-haiti/)

[2]: [http://www.cedimat.com/en/](http://www.cedimat.com/en/)

------
kelvin0
It would be a tragedy if this cholera outbreak was the only cause of many poor
people in Haiti. The UN have been killing people over there for many years:

[http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/11/eyewitnesses_describe_...](http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/11/eyewitnesses_describe_massacre_by_un_troops)

[http://haitiaction.net/News/HIP/1_21_7/1_21_7.html](http://haitiaction.net/News/HIP/1_21_7/1_21_7.html)

------
tim333
Bit of a major screw up there. If they'd been open about the source they
probably could have fixed it. Even now googling Cholera prevention it mostly
seems to be sorted by chlorinating the water supply and using bleach on
cholera contaminated stuff - not rocket science and could probably be done
without $2bn. When I'm 3rd world travelling I tend to figure if the tap water
smells of chlorine you're ok.

Funny seeing the London map. My flat's on that. Thankfully we have less
cholera these days. I remember being struck in Nepal about 20 years ago by
seeing some guy crapping directly on the river bed of the main river in
Kathmandu which was probably being used for water by villages downstream.
Again some of this stuff is not rocket science.

~~~
zymhan
It's been widely known that the UN peacekeepers originated the outbreak for
years now. The issue isn't closed source data, it's the UN being
organizationally incapable of holding people responsible for fuck ups.

EDIT: Recent example -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-
the-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-the-un-but-
it-is-failing.html)

~~~
greggman
So if you come to a bar with the flu and get me sick should I hold you
responsible for fuck ups? Or maybe the bar? What if one of their workers is
the one with the flu?

I'm not sure it's comparable, flu only kills 4x more people as cholera and
honestly I'd personally like it if I could sue people for getting me sick by
going out to public places when they know they are sick. (A friend of mine
just gloated on twitter that he probably got 100 people sick by attending a
meetup with the flu.)

That said, since most people don't seem to agree with me and just take it as
normal that sicknesses get passed on with a ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ type attitude I guess
I'm unsure how to hold the UN any more responsible.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> honestly I'd personally like it if I could sue people for getting me sick by
> going out to public places when they know they are sick

You definitely can do this. They'd need to have something more serious than
the flu. Forcible quarantine for severe communicable diseases is a feature of
US law.

> flu only kills 4x more people as cholera

How many people have the flu, vs how many having cholera?

~~~
EdHominem
He'd only need to sue for damages because they violated reasonable self-
quarantine principles and put him and others at risk - not force the state to
actually quarantine them.

And he could definitely sue. USA!

------
nthcolumn
A few Nigerian peacekeepers spread HIV in Cambodia which had been previously
relatively free.

~~~
brownbat
This is a huge concern, but it seems like a broader problem than Nigeria:

* Not much is known about the prevalence of HIV among peacekeepers, because the UN rejects mandatory testing.

* In 2000, a US Intelligence Council Report estimated an HIV prevalence rate of between 10 and 20% among the armed forces of the Ivory Coast and Nigeria, and an even higher prevalence of 40–60% among the militaries of the war-affected countries of Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

* Surveys of Dutch personnel suggest that 45% routinely had unprotected sex with sex workers in Cambodia during a tour there.

[http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?...](http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=01240&article=00027&type=fulltext)

~~~
tim333
That's pretty bad. Just testing a bit and leaving the HIV infected ones at
home could fix things. That's a lot of Cambodians they are killing to save
some embarrassment.

~~~
knodi123
is the UN's decision motivated by the UN's embarrassment, though?

I assumed it was more about the UN's fear of major dropoff in volunteer rates
from countries/orgs that would be embarrassed about their infection rates.
After all, the UN only _exists_ because of the participation of all the member
countries. They are right to fear hurting participation rates...

I'm not defending the spread of HIV, just noting that it's a nuanced
challenge.

------
Kinnard
Each year all the sophomores at my high school take an 11-day wilderness trek
in the Great Smokey Mountains. One of the many things we learn is not to shit
near water. I probably remember this particularly well because when someone in
my troupe fucked this up, we got an angry lecture from our guide.

I like to be gracious but I can't imagine how the UN fucked this up

~~~
steve19
The answer is easily.

UN troops are simply troops rented by the UN from member countries. They are
no less or better trained nor less corrupt than their fellow soldiers back
home who are not wearing blue helmets.

Renting troops to the UN is a racket that nets a lot of money. Countries have
even been known to cheat the UN by pretending they have more troops or
equipment deployed than is actually the case so they earn more.

Think of them as Pakistan, French, Australian or Nigerian etc. troops wearing
blue helmets, they are nothing more than that.

~~~
ptaipale
> _UN troops are simply troops rented by the UN from member countries. They
> are no less or better trained nor less corrupt than their fellow soldiers
> back home who are not wearing blue helmets._

At least in my country (Finland), the troops who volunteer to UN duty get
specific training for it.

The training is not very long, but on the other hand, there is a selection
process that means that by no means everyone theoretically eligible gets to
go, so we can well argue that the troops in blue helmets are better trained
(and much better paid) than the average conscript, and the process to select
them also impacts who gets to go.

~~~
reitanqild
Agree. There is a huge difference between them.

I try to get them to tell any time I speak to any of thise veterans and what I
hear is scary.

Example: one Danish officer had to go so far as to tell UN soldiers from
another country that they would be shot if he took them for buying kids again.

Another story: painting endangered turtles UN blue and shoot at them just for
fun. Can't say for sure who did but I have a hunch this one was Scandinavians.

------
brownbat
Aside from its own cholera epidemic, along with water, health, and disaster
relief crises, in 2014 Nepal had a lower per capita GDP than Haiti.[0,1]

I appreciate the desire to make the UN a truly global effort, but maybe there
should be some filter where peacekeepers only help at home or in countries
worse off. Otherwise, we're not only raising the risk of incidents like this
and other peacekeeper scandals, but also taking soldiers away from vulnerable
populations at home that already need their help.

[0] [http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nepal/gdp-per-
capita](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/nepal/gdp-per-capita)

[1] [http://www.tradingeconomics.com/haiti/gdp-per-
capita](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/haiti/gdp-per-capita)

~~~
mseebach
Is there any evidence that the deployment of the nepalese soldiers had any ill
effects at home? That their absence handicapped responses to those crises?

On the other hand, deploying the nepalese soldiers equips them with practical
experience (some of which might well have come in handy after the 2015 quake),
and I assume they are fairly well paid on a UN mission too. Injecting some
cash into Nepal is not a bad thing.

~~~
throwaway049
From the UN website it looks like poorer countries stand to make a (small)
profit on deployment:

>Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their
own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel
to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate,
approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per
month.
[http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml](http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml)

~~~
mseebach
Obviously, salaries aren't the full cost of a military, especially not on
deployment, but US$1332 is ~140k Nepalese rupees, which is 4x the national
average salary.

[http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-
survey.php?loc=151&loct...](http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-
survey.php?loc=151&loctype=1)

I would suspect this is fairly lucrative.

------
pessimizer
The interventions in Haiti post-earthquake are an embarrassment and a tragedy.
The massive outpouring of money was largely sucked up by the salaries and
comforts of the administration of parasitic NGOs, governments' main provision
was armed troops, and imported food aid decimated local agriculture.

Here are years of too much detail:

[http://cepr.net/blogs/haiti-relief-and-reconstruction-
watch/](http://cepr.net/blogs/haiti-relief-and-reconstruction-watch/)

edit:

 _The group’s failures went beyond just infrastructure.

When a cholera epidemic raged through Haiti nine months after the quake, the
biggest part of the Red Cross’ response — a plan to distribute soap and oral
rehydration salts — was crippled by "internal issues that go unaddressed,"
wrote the director of the Haiti program in her May 2011 memo.

Throughout that year, cholera was a steady killer. By September 2011, when the
death toll had surpassed 6,000, the project was still listed as “very behind
schedule” according to another internal document.

The Red Cross said in a statement that its cholera response, including a
vaccination campaign, has continued for years and helped millions of Haitians.

But while other groups also struggled early responding to cholera, some
performed well.

“None of these people had to die. That’s what upsets me," said Paul Christian
Namphy, a Haitian water and sanitation official who helped lead the effort to
fight cholera. He says early failures by the Red Cross and other NGOs had a
devastating impact. “These numbers should have been zero."_

How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti ­and Built Six Homes

[https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-
raised-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-
a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes)

------
bayesian_horse
I can actually understand the impulse to keep this quiet. Lack of trust in Aid
missions or Peace Keeping missions is already hurting a lot of people.

~~~
kmfrk
These days, fucking up seems to be everything the UN peacekeepers are known
for, though. The number of sexual assaults committed with impunity is
staggering.

I don't recommend googling it, because some of it is so heinous beyond your
wildest imagination.

~~~
verytrivial
Bad peacekeepers should be imprisoned. And a special place in hell is reserved
for people who cover up abuse. That said, "what they're known for" may say
more about the controversy-obsessed nature of media that anything.
"Peacekeepers keep peace" will not sell, will it? And there are of course
certain groups who would rather all authority be removed from the UN so they
can operate freely.

~~~
mseebach
> That said, "what they're known for" may say more about the controversy-
> obsessed nature of media that anything

Yeah, they're a lot like Blackwater that way.

Snark aside, I find it deeply fascinating just how broad a benefit of the
doubt UN peacekeepers get, compared to anything that has to do with the US
military, or, heaven forbid it, Blackwater. Especially considering that most
of what we hear about those organisations is filtered through the very same
"controversy-obsessed" media.

~~~
marcosdumay
> I find it deeply fascinating just how broad a benefit of the doubt UN
> peacekeepers get, compared to anything that has to do with the US military

Yes, it's really hard to imagine why UN peacekeepers have a bigger benefit of
the doubt than a foreigner invading troop. Very hard. \s

------
bcook
..."started by" or "(was) started with"?

Regardless of origination locale, can we (HN) try to be more universal with
our topics?

~~~
Starsgen
I had to laugh! It's Friday.

