Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2020 ILA Kyoto Biennial

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2020 ILA Kyoto Biennial

draft Text of Third Report (2020) of the Committee, ILA Kyoto Biennial

prepared for discussion and adoption (draft of Jun 14, 2020)

 

 Statement of the Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association 

regarding the COVID-19 pandemic

adopted by the Committee on 5 April 2020

The Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association observes that the potential for virus-based pandemic outbreaks has long been anticipated by public-health specialists as well as by the World Health Organization (WHO). During the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak attention was drawn to gaps in the preparedness of local health systems, to the scientific challenges of developing new treatments, vaccines and diagnostics in a sufficiently rapid manner to effectively confront large-scale virus outbreaks, and to the special difficulties confronted by low-resource environments in addressing pandemic outbreaks. In February 2015 the Committee convened a meeting on Global Health Security in Geneva at which a substantial number of interested stakeholders shared concerns about these gaps. Following detailed preparatory work, the World Health Assembly met in May 2015 and decided that additional resources should be directed toward prevention of and response to pandemic outbreaks. Although the precise contours and the magnitude of the COVID-19 outbreak could not be foreseen at that time, the potential for such an event was widely understood, as was the need for further advance investment to address it.

Taking note of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Global Health Law Committee wishes to restate fundamental principles and rules of international law important to containing and ending the pandemic, safeguarding the rights of individuals and groups, and ultimately returning international society to a normal functioning state:

1. Cooperation. The Committee stresses the importance of cooperation among states and international institutions in addressing pandemic outbreaks. A pandemic outbreak is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of pooling scientific ingenuity and of open cooperation among scientists and research institutions, for coordinating logistic and manufacturing capacity, for making available the financial resources necessary to purchase and distribute necessary health products (including vaccines, diagnostics, treatments and personal protective equipment), and for attempting to assure that individuals throughout the world have access to life-sustaining support, including adequate nutrition. A pandemic outbreak is not an occasion for seeking political or economic advantage. Uncoordinated travel and trade restrictions and, more generally, the perception that states can effectively protect themselves from a pandemic in isolation or competing with other states for limited resources, are counterproductive. Actions taken on such premises threaten to destabilize the existing multilateral regime and its institutions with long-term adverse consequences. The world needs more cooperation, coordination and solidarity at this critical time. The Committee therefore welcomes the United Nations General Assembly resolution of 2 April 2020 affirming its commitment to international cooperation and multilateralism.

2. Support to the World Health Organization. The WHO was established in substantial measure to provide a forum where the world community could meet and agree on the processes and substantive measures necessary to address international public health emergencies. It is critical that states support the central role of WHO in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and in preparing for and confronting future public health crises. To this end, respecting the independence of the Secretariat and of the experts and enhancing financial support for WHO in a sustainable, predictable and flexible manner through voluntary contributions as well as a long-term increase of its assessed contributions are crucial. Even though the current state of the pandemic arguably exceeds the scope of the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), it still has an important role to play as the global legal framework to channel data and information and facilitate the coordination of response measures. States parties should avoid weakening the IHR through the proliferation of unilateral uncoordinated measures and comply with their obligations, in particular with regard to notifications, provision of information, mutual assistance and cooperation and refraining from restrictive measures not supported by a proper risk assessment.

3. Fundamental human rights. The rights to life, to health and to food are fundamental. As treatments, vaccines and diagnostics are introduced to address the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that the international community focus on assuring equitable access to all people, at all levels of income, wherever they may be located. The response to this pandemic must be grounded in the principle of nondiscrimination.

4. Food security and tradeThe Committee applauds the joint statement by the heads of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),the WHO and the World Trade Organization (WTO) of 31 March 2020 calling on states, as they move to enact measures aiming to halt the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize potential impacts on the food supply or unintended consequences on global trade and food security. The Committee also welcomes the declaration by the G20 leaders to avoid unnecessary disruptions and interferences in international trade.

5. Pooling and availability of technologies. Exclusive rights to technologies such as those afforded by patents and regulatory-based market exclusivity may be useful in ordinary circumstances to promote the aggregation of capital necessary for private enterprise to engage in research and development (R&D). The higher prices facilitated by such exclusive rights may in ordinary times be acceptable as a trade-off between future research and prompt access, though in ordinary times prices must be reasonable. In the extraordinary circumstance of a global pandemic, however, where rapid access to treatments, vaccines and diagnostics is vital, technologies must be shared so that production, distribution and access are maximized. Technology should be pooled and made available at low cost. Exclusive intellectual property rights must not act as a constraint on access. On 22 March 2020, the Committee joined with other stakeholders in supporting a proposal from Costa Rica to the WHO Director General to create a broad technology pooling and licensing arrangement to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee will continue its role in developing and supporting proposals to further innovation and to assure equitable access.

6. Temporary restrictions to rights and freedoms. Some measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, including quarantines, are inherently at tension with a range of rights and freedoms guaranteed under human rights law, including the right to privacy and physical integrity, and freedom of movement. These measures must have a legal basis and be proportionate. They should be designed to minimize interference with human rights. Should a State decide to temporarily 'derogate' from human rights, such derogation requires careful monitoring to ensure that rights are not set aside unnecessarily. These extraordinary restrictions and derogations should be temporary and great caution and attention must be taken to assure they are lifted as soon as they become unnecessary and do not persist after the public health emergency has passed. A pandemic must not provide an ongoing basis for heightened and indefinite government intrusion in personal spheres of activity. International monitoring bodies should hold states accountable for how they have implemented limitations and derogations to their human rights obligations as part of their fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, while fully taking into account the exceptional nature of the situation.

7. Humanitarian assistance. The Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) is the humanitarian coordination forum of the UN system. It brings together the executive heads of 18 UN and non-UN organizations and programs (including WHO, FAO, UNICEF and UNHCR) to ensure the coordination of humanitarian assistance during emergencies. After the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, IASC adapted its procedures to ensure a more effective response to infectious disease events. We welcome the adoption of the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan launched on 25 March 2020. This plan is to be implemented by the IASC partners in selected vulnerable States already facing humanitarian crises because of conflict or natural disasters. It is thus essential that all member states of the United Nations, especially developed states, fully support the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan through additional funding that should not be diverted from ongoing humanitarian operations. As requested in the plan, donor funding should maximize flexibility (across the board rather than project by project) to enable rapid adjustments of the response. The Committee notes that funding for the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan will be complementary to the financing instrument launched by the UN Secretary General on 31 March 2020 for responding to the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic.

8. Ongoing conflicts. Parties to ongoing conflicts, whether internal or international, should immediately pursue ceasefires as requested by the UN Secretary-General so as to avoid magnifying the scale of human suffering. The United Nations organs such as the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as the UN Secretary General, should demand that hostilities be suspended to stem the spread of the pandemic. Health has historically served as a humanitarian consideration during armed conflicts, including “days of tranquility” agreed between opposing combatants to allow for child vaccination. WHO, the UN, the ICRC and other international institutions should build on the value of health at this moment both to enable urgent health operations as well as to pursue de-escalation of current conflicts.

9.  Limitations to economic sanctions. As part of the elementary considerations of humanity, unilateral and collective countermeasures (“sanctions”) should not interfere with access to food and should not prevent the circulation, export, import and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as medicines and medical devices.

10. UN Security Council role. The United Nations Security Council has discussed in the past the possible implications of certain diseases on international security, notably HIV-AIDS and Ebola. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the current crisis, the Committee believes that the Security Council has a role to play in managing the political effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, it could monitor and address the impact of the pandemic on current crises and conflicts, peacekeeping operations and request cooperation and coordination among states and other actors when warranted by health considerations.

11. International financial institutions. International financial institutions are positioned to  attenuate the more vulnerable situation of developing countries facing economic shocks due to the pandemic. The Committee welcomes the recent announcements by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to authorize additional funding to developing countries aimed at mitigating the multidimensional economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of the IMF, the Committee takes note of its close collaboration with the WHO, which resulted in doubling the amount of available emergency response funds for strengthening healthcare systems. The Committee also notes the authorization by the World Bank of multiple projects for Emergency Health Support. The Committee encourages review of existing mechanisms such as the World Bank’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility to identify gaps in pandemic response, and to address those gaps as appropriate.

 

Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association

Frederick Abbott, Co-Chair, Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor, Florida State University College of Law, USA

Brigit Toebes, Co-Chair, Professor and Chair, Health Law in a Global Context, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Ellen ‘t Hoen, Co-Rapporteur, Director Medicines Law & Policy and University Medical Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands

Including the following Members:

Ryan Abbott, Professor of Law and Health Sciences, University of Surrey, United Kingdom and Adjunct Asst. Prof. of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, USA

Pia Acconci, Full professor of international law, Faculty of Communication Science, University of Teramo, Italy

Gian Luca Burci, Adjunct Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

Wang Chenguang, Professor of Law, Tsinghua University, China, and Member of the National Expert Committee of Covid-19 Emergency in China

 

 

Hélène De Pooter, Senior Lecturer in Law at Bourgogne Franche-Comté University, France 

Andre den Exter, Universitair hoofddocent Gezondheidsrecht (University Professor Health Law), Jean Monnet Chair EU Health Law, Erasmus School of Law, The Netherlands

Nicole D Foster, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, Barbados

Dr. Mihalis Kritikos, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA), EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, Belgium

Stefania Negri, Associate Professor of International Law, Department of Legal Sciences – University of Salerno, Italy

Maya Prabhu, M.D., LL.B., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, USA

Laurent Sermet, Professeur d’Université, Institut d’études politiques, Aix-en-Provence, France

Pedro Villarreal, PhD (UNAM, Mexico), Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany

Tania Voon, Professor, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia

 

 

 

Committee Endorses Costa Rica Technology Pooling Proposal to WHO

Committee Endorses Costa Rica Technology Pooling Proposal to WHO

On March 22, 2020, the Global Health Law Committee has joined with other organizations and individuals to voice support for the proposal submitted by the government of Costa Rica to the Director General of World Health Organization for the creation of a broad technology pooling and licensing arrangement to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter of support can be found here, including posted accompanying statements by Committee Co-Chair and Co-Rapporteur:

Professor Fredrick Abbott, Co-Chair of the ILA Global Health Law Committee and Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor, Florida State University College of Law, USA

“The urgent need for sharing of technologies and resources needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic is evident. The principal question is whether political leaders can see past narrow interests and rapidly engage a process that provides tangible results to benefit all member states and people, and especially those with resource constraints. This is not the time for a multiyear WHO negotiation like the one that resulted in the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework. WHO leadership should immediately engage with interested stakeholders, establish a tight timeline, and formulate a concrete recommendation for a pooling mechanism that can promptly be made operational. This is the time to prove that multilateral institutions can make a real difference.”

Ellen ‘t Hoen LLM PhD, Director, Medicines Law & Policy

“I wholeheartedly support the proposal by Costa Rica to create a global pool for rights in the data, knowledge and technologies useful in the prevention, detection and treatment of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is a time for solidarity and sharing. The sad reality is that conflicts are breaking out over access to essential know-how. Significant public funding is poured into the developments of tools for prevention and treatment. I cannot imagine a more urgent situation for the world to come together and make the Covid-19 technology pool a reality.”

Upcoming Member Activities

Upcoming Member Activities

 

Global Network of Societies for International Law (GNSIL) Conference on 

Regional Organisations and COVID-19 : Building on Regional Experiences to face a Global Threat

Wed. 27 May 2020, 2-3.30 pm CEST

Moderated by: Hélène De Pooter

Download Zoom Meeting Details

COVID-19: Committee Member Publications and Materials

COVID-19: Committee Member Publications and Materials

Frederick M. Abbott, Confronting COVID-19 In A World Without WHO – Seriously?, Inside View, Health Policy Watch, April 14, 2020

Webinar with Frederick Abbott and Gian Luca Burci, COVID-19 and International Law: A Snapshot, a CLE seminar hosted on April 28, 2020, by the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, and the International Law Association (American Branch)

Gian Luca Burci, The Outbreak of COVID-19 Coronavirus: are the International Health Regulations fit for purpose?, February 27, 2020, ejiltalk.org

R Habibi, G-L Burci, et al., Do not violate the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 outbreak, The Lancet, February 13, 2020 

Ellen 't Hoen, Covid-19 and the comeback of compulsory licensing, March 23, 2020, Medicines Law and Policy Blog

Mihalis Kritikos, What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?, Scientific Foresight: What if?, EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 641.538 – March 2020

Mihalis Kritikos, Ten technologies to fight coronavirus, In-Depth Analysis, EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 641.543 – April 2020

Hélène De Pooter, Overview of international cooperation regarding surveillance and response to epidemics and pandemics (language: French), in Santé et droit international, Editions A. PEDONE – PARIS – 2019 

Hélène De Pooter, Coronavirus: the European Commission creates a medical rescEU stockpile (Source: Dalloz Actu, 24 March 2020 (language: French)

Hélène De Pooter, The COVID-19 pandemic reminds us of the importance of international law for the consolidation of a "sanitary social pact" (language: French), 9 April 2020 

Hélène De Pooter, The Civil Protection Mechanism of the European Union: A Solidarity Tool at Test by the COVID-19 Pandemic, ASIL Insights, Vol. 24. No. 7, May 1, 2020

Hélène De Pooter,  The Covid-19 Pandemic Informed by the History of International Health Cooperation (language: French), The Conversation, 12 May 2020

Brigit Toebes - COVID-19 outbreak is a matter of international law and human rights, March 24, 2020, Global Health Law Groningen Blog

National Legislation and Decisions

National Legislation and Decisions

France Avis du Conseil scientifique, 23 mars 2020Conseil d'État, 22 mars 2020, Demande de confinement totalLOI n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 d’urgence pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 (1), NOR: PRMX2007883L  

Global Health Security Work Program

Report on Activities at Sydney Biennial - August 2018

Report on Activities at Sydney Biennial - August 2018

ILA Sydney Report The Global Health Law Committee, co-Chaired by Profs. Frederick Abbott and Brigit Toebes, convened its public working session on Tuesday morning, August 21, 2018. The Committee submitted its Report in advance of the meeting, and the co-Chairs briefly outlined the substance of the Report. This was followed by substantive presentations by Prof. Toebes addressing the identification and development of general principles of global health law, by Dr. Pedro Villarreal on the relationship between global health law and international environmental law, and by Prof. Abbott's presentation on transparency as a principle of global health law. The working session was well attended by non-members, and useful ideas for future work of the Committee emerged from interventions by those participants. For example, the suggestion was made that the Committee might further explore the rule system governing collection and use of health data that involves potential scientific benefits (e.g. AI-assisted R&D), on one side, and interference with rights of personality, privacy and related discrimination issues (e.g., insurance coverage), on the other. Data flows are often trans-border, and this points to an important international legal dimension that might be taken up by the Committee. There was substantial consensus that public health concerns (i.e. the effects) are an increasingly important dimension of environmental impacts (i.e. the causes), and that while so far international law has tended to focus on environmental causes, there is room for further exploring the legal implications of public health effects (e.g., a precautionary principle with respect to health). The Global Health Law Committee was also responsible for organizing a “side event” on Tuesday afternoon discussing the WTO Tobacco Panel Report.

In June 2018, a WTO dispute settlement Panel issued a Report on the complaints filed with respect to Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging (TPP) legislation by Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Indonesia. The Panel rejected all claims of WTO inconsistency in an 880+ page decision. There were two main sets of claims, those under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), and those under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The Global Health Law Committee organized an expert panel to assess the Panel Report. This was a timely and “geographically appropriate” occasion given Australia’s central role in the dispute, and we were fortunate to include among the panelists several individuals who directly participated in the dispute settlement process, both from a legal and scientific angle. The Sydney panel was comprised of Jonathan Liberman (McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, Australia), Edward Kwakwa (World Intellectual Property Organisation, Switzerland), Natasha Spisbah (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia), Prof. Brigit Toebes (University of Groningen, Netherlands) and Prof. Tania Voon (University of Melbourne, Australia). Prof. Abbott chaired this expert panel session. The good news, of course, is that the WTO Panel reached the legally correct result, though that was hardly a surprise given the weakness of the complaining parties’ position -- which weakness was manifest already from the outset of the case back in 2012. One interesting question discussed by the panelists was whether the tobacco producers nevertheless enjoyed some success by virtue of the 6-year time span for issuance of the panel report, exceeding WTO procedural rules by five years (though somewhat less by customary practice), thereby managing to delay adoption of similar TPP legislation by other countries. Opinions were mixed on that, with some expressing the view that after about two years countries contemplating new legislation had stopped worrying about the WTO. Others thought that there were concrete examples of government delays awaiting the outcome. The case illustrated the complex science surrounding smoking cessation, and the importance of a multipronged approach to reducing tobacco use. It demonstrated that the TBT Agreement is not a “model of clarity”, particularly regarding some rules surrounding burden of proof, and the disputing parties spent considerable time debating which WTO Member had the burden, and what were the potential consequences of burden shifting. Considerable attention was paid to the WTO Panel determination that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control did not constitute a “relevant international standard” for purposes of establishing a rebuttable presumption that Australia’s legislation did not constitute an unnecessary obstacle to trade, and whether that determination raised questions regarding WTO’s approach to public health matters. On the TRIPS Agreement, the “main” question was whether Australia’s TPP legislation “unjustifiably” encumbered the rights of trademark owners under Article 20. Again, the WTO Panel reached the right (i.e. no) result, but there was some discussion in Sydney about the multi-part analytic framework employed. Interestingly, the complaining countries generally conceded that the TRIPS Agreement does not establish a “right to use” trademarks yet sought in various ways to infer positive from otherwise negative rights. The WTO Panel rejected those efforts. An appeal of the Panel Report was initiated by the time of the Sydney Biennial (Honduras, more recently followed by Dominican Republic), and Prof. Voon discussed the issues raised in the Honduras appeal filing. A number of insightful interventions were made from the floor as part of the follow-on Q & A.

 

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2018 ILA Sydney Biennial

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2018 ILA Sydney Biennial

Text of Final (adopted) Second Report (2018) of the Committee, ILA Sydney Biennial Conference

Second Report of the Global Health Law Committee prepared for the International Law Association 2018 Sydney Biennial Conference, August 19-24, 2018

draft Report to be discussed and proposed for adoption

Committee Meeting - Geneva March 13, 2017

WHO Health Emergencies Program

WHO Health Emergencies Program - March 2017 Update

 

WHO Health Emergencies Program Documentation http://who.int/emergencies/en/

UPDATE | WHO Health, Emergencies Programme: progress and priorities, Financing dialogue, 31 October 2016 http://who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/financing-dialogue/whe-update.pdf?ua=1

WHO An R&D Blueprint for Action to Prevent Epidemics http://who.int/csr/research-and-development/r_d_blueprint_plan_of_action.pdf?ua=1

 

Climate Change and Health

Climate Change and Health

 

US - The Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health1 (IWGCCH) A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change: Change A Report Outlining the Research Needs on the Human Health Effects of Climate Change <https://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/pubs/hhcc_final_508.pdf>

 

Committee Meeting, Johannesburg Biennial August 9, 2016

Committee Meeting, Johannesburg Biennial August 9, 2016

Presenters at Biennial

Co-Rapporteur Xavier Seuba, Member Ruth Atherton, Co-Chair Frederick Abbott

 

Audio: 

Draft Committee Report for Johannesburg Biennial (August 2016)

Draft Committee Report for Johannesburg Biennial (August 2016)

Documents of Interest

Documents of Interest

Philip Morris v. UK Sec'y for Health, CJEU, Case -547/14, 4 May 2016

USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX

London Meeting March 11, 2016

London Meeting March 11, 2016

Committee Submissions to UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicines

Committee Submissions to UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicines

The Committee's submissions to the High Level Panel process will be presented in London at the public hearing on March 9, 2016.

The proposal for an Essential Medicines Patent Pool will be presented by Ellen 't Hoen (GHLC Rapporteur) in connection with a panel regarding Contributions that propose Incremental Modifications to Existing Innovation and Access Models – Patent related Mechanisms, beginning at 11:15 AM

The proposal for The Framework Convention on Pharmaceutical Innovation and Its Related Protocols will be presented by Xavier Seuba (GHLC Rapporteur) in connection with a panel regarding Contributions regarding System Wide Reform -- New Models to Finance Innovation, beginning at 1:40 PM

Information regarding webcast of the public hearing should be available from the UN High Level Panel Secretariat prior to the hearing: http://www.unsgaccessmeds.org

Submitted February 19, 2016

Proposal 1 (EMPP) prepared by: Ellen ‘t Hoen LLM, Prof dr Brigit Toebes, Katrina Perehudoff MSc, LLM, and Prof Frederick M Abbott

Proposal 2 (Framework) prepared by: Xavier Seuba

News Reporting

News Reporting

Donald McNeil, Simob Romero & Sabrina Tavernise, How a Medical Mystery in Brazil Led Doctors to Zika, Feb. 6, 2016

Simon Romero, Alarm Spreads in Brazil Over a Virus and a Surge in Malformed Infants, NY Times, December 30, 2015 

Dionne Searcey and Sheri Fink, Sierra Leone Declared Free of Ebola Transmissions, NY Times, Nov. 7, 2015

Denise Grady, 2 New Ebola Vaccines Pass Important Early Test, Researchers Say, NY Times, April 8, 2015

NIH Press Release, Experimental Ebola vaccine safe, prompts immune response, April 1, 2015, US HHS

Amirah Al Idrus, GSK to test Ebola jab with booster from Emergent BioSolutions, FierceVaccines, Mar. 18, 2015

Pam Belluck, Ebola Virus in Latest Outbreak Does Not Show Unusual Mutations, Study Finds, NY Times, Mar. 26, 2015

Dina Fine Maron, West Africa Unprepared for Future Health Crises Despite Ebola Aid, Scientific Am., Mar. 23, 2015

Sheri Fink, Nearly Halted in Sierra Leone, Ebola Makes Comeback by Sea, NY Times, Feb. 28, 2015

Donald G. McNeil, Jr., Fatality Rate Is Falling in West African Ebola Clinics, Feb. 26, 2015

Betsy McKay, How to Detect Infectious Diseases Like Ebola Faster, Wall St.J., Feb. 20, 2015

Pam Belluck, Red Cross Faces Attacks at Ebola Victims’ Funerals, NY Times, Feb. 12, 2015

NY Times Editorial Board, Reform After the Ebola Debacle, Feb. 10, 2015

 

Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Obama to Recall Military Personnel from Ebola Zone, Officials Say, NY Times, Feb. 10, 2015

Sheri Fink, Ebola Drug Aids Some in a Study in West Africa, NY Times, Feb. 4, 2015

Norimitsu Onishi, As Ebola Ebbs in Africa, Focus Turns From Death to Life, NY Times, Jan. 25, 2015

Jonathan Corum, A History of Ebola in 24 Outbreaks, NY Times, Dec. 29, 2014