In September, the World Health Organization released a study conducted with the Ministry of Health of Iraq that sought to determine whether there was a rise in the birth defect rate affecting children born after concentrated U.S. bombings on Fallujah and Basra in 2003. After much controversy over almost one year of delays, the report’s findings are an alarming reminder that WHO — a supposedly impartial agency of the UN that is concerned with international public health — seems to have buckled under the weight of political pressure from the United States and United Kingdom.

Public health professionals in Iraq’s Ministry of Health concluded that there is “no clear evidence to suggest an unusually high rate of congenital birth defects in Iraq” after conducting surveys in over 10,000 households across several Iraqi districts.

The use of surveys immediately calls the credibility of its findings into question. The summary report admits the study has limitations, including the reliance on a mother’s memory regarding details about birth complications that may have occurred over a decade ago. The study admits that these methods of data collection are “less reliable” than others. No real scientific evidence was collected or presented.

A retired WHO expert spoke to The Guardian — one of the the only major news publication performing investigative reporting on the WHO study — and confirmed that the report was “not of scientific quality” and that the chosen family members were “not qualified to make a diagnosis.” He asserted the definite possibility that pressure coming from the United States and the United Kingdom could have led to the lack of depth in this report, and cited reports in 2001 and 2004 that were suppressed because the United States influenced them.

The findings of this study clearly contradict the statements made by MOH officials to the BBC in spring of 2013, when they admitted to “damning evidence that there has been a rise in birth defects and cancer rates.” The conclusions reached by several peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent nongovernmental organizations, and experts on environmental health and toxicology are also contradicted. Using scientific data — the collection of hair, soil, water samples and past medical records — the reports determined the rise in birth defects is unusual. The cause, they found, is an unnatural level of enriched uranium, frequently present in high-grade weapons like those used in the 2003 attacks.

The stakes for the United States and United Kingdom in terms of international standing are high, and release of official reports confirming birth defects as a result of bombings would come at a severe cost. Although there is no conclusive evidence that political influence resulted in the lack of quality in the recent WHO report, the organization should be held accountable for this breakdown in scientific value and should recognize its duty to public health over any political intimidation.

A version of this article appeared in the Thursday, Oct. 24 print edition. Nina Golshan is a staff columnist. Email her at [email protected].