This paper examines the World Health Organisation’s Surveillance System for Attacks on Health Care (SSA), offering what the authors describe as the first published independent critique of the dataset. It argues that serious methodological weaknesses undermine the reliability of WHO statistics and the political narratives built around them.
On 26 October 2026, thinc. in partnership with the Henry Jackson Society, launched a new report analyzing the World Health Organization dataset on attacks on health care. This novel research, False Alarm: Problems in the World Health Organization Data on Attacks on Health Care, was authored by Prof Leslie Johns of the University of California at Los Angeles and by Prof Gregory Rose of the University of Wollongong Australia.
The report illuminates a shadowy corner where data science and international policy intersect. It critiques the methodology used to compile the WHO global Surveillance System for Attacks on Health Care and makes recommendations for its improvement.
Analysis of the WHO data reveals two major problems. First, the WHO has adopted an overly expansive definition of the term “attack”, which does not match legal and common understandings of the word. Second, the WHO data collection process is filled with opportunities for bias in reporting. Unfortunately, this flawed system is used to form United Nations narratives about the conduct of armed conflict.
The report proposes recommendations to improve WHO reporting:
1. Adopt more neutral language to describe SSA events;
2. Explicitly and publicly identify limits on how SSA data should be used;
3. Perform additional verification of deaths and injuries;
4. Create a public feedback mechanism for belligerents;
5. Provide more incident data to the public and researchers; and
6. Indicate non-participation by states and territories.
