{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025341130604288498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001949317738791423, 'mean_word_length': 4.642857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Powering and puzzling in global public health.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and global health governance are once again under fire. Multiple reports and news commentaries have been scathing about its Ebola response, from initial identification to response.1 Once again, global health governance has let us down.

On any issue from Ebola to climate change where there is a gap between what is and what could be on the world scene, there will be an analysis of what the United Nations, including WHO, is not doing. Public health advocates should step back before being too critical. Are we asking the wrong things of global governance? A political analysis shows that the UN agencies, WHO included, are often doing just what is asked of them. Working well with them, let alone improving them, involves understanding their situation.

First, and most important, the United Nations works for its member states. For them, it is often a highly functional receptacle for blame.2 It makes sense that the problems sent to the …