meta content='width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0' name='viewport'/>

Sunday, November 20, 2016


"Goodbye Ebola," they say but the disease is still a threat in West Africa

"Goodbye Ebola," they say but the disease is still a threat in West Africa

Teresa Romero tested positive and drew more than 375,000 signatures. At the same time in West Africa, 10,000 infected poor people were dying and the West closed its borders. Nobody in the streets to protest. 

By the middle of 2014, international health organizations and authorities knew they probably could stop Ebola by the end of the year, or even earlier, if they would properly peer various scientific studies, presented to them by Dr. David Fedson early August 2014, and by EBOLA ATTACK TEAM in Sierra Leone on October 3, 2014, about the promising effect of the oral medicines: Statin (Atorvastatin), Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (Irbesartan) and Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (Clomiphene). 

Unlike experimental Ebola treatments/vaccines, these drugs already had FDA & EMA approval since 30 years and are produced as inexpensive generics. The medicines are officially registered and for decades administered to millions of people around the world without serious side effects.

On 3 October 2014, Ebola Attack Team members presented Dr. Fedson and colleagues’ thesis with Concordia medicines, studies and scientific reports to Professor Monty Jones who introduced it to the EOC (Emergency Operations Centre). 

The CDC USA, explicitly mentions on its website that “Clinical management of EVD should focus on supportive care of complications, such as septic shock” and that is precisely what EAT and its medical team proposed. Dr. Simona Zipursky, the W.H.O. representative in Sierra Leone and representatives of international health organizations, including CDC/USA, IMS, Red Cross and MSF aggressively turned against this promising protocol and started to indoctrinate the authorities and health care community to ignore and deny the proposed medication. 

Billions of Dollars were at stake and the Ebola Attack Team solution only cost a couple of millions from which they would not benefit. With petty cash the Ebola crisis could have been stopped before the end of 2014 but the global health organizations choose for a multi-billion dollar experiment and let people suffer for nothing than arrogance and selfishness. Probably thousands of lives could have been saved and so the economy.

For unknown reasons and hidden agendas they purposely denied Ebola patients access to what was proven by medical Ebola Attack Team doctors and which cured 300 Ebola patients without side effects in Sierra Leone between October 3, and December 15, 2014. 

Ebola Attack Team doctors assume that the intake of medicines like antibiotics, malaria tablets, and HIV blockers combined with long term hibernating symptomless Ebola in the eye and brain fluids, leave residues in the central nervous system and protected genetic reproduction center that causes Post-Ebola Syndrome symptoms. 

The medical experts in the group came to the conclusion that a combination of the proposed drugs held promising impact to ease aftereffect symptoms and rapidly help the immune system to defeat the symptoms and eliminate remaining Ebola residue. The medicine inhibits key inflammatory chemicals in the blood like interleukin 1-2 and 6, tumor necrosis factor, and interferons.

The reason why Ebola Attack Team’s success was belittled was to keep the billions of dollars floating for years to come. From a humanitarian point of view it was the task and moral duty of Ebola experts and medical doctors, who were extensively informed about a promising treatment-protocol, to offer Ebola patients free choice on voluntary basis. During vaccination with experimental drugs, frequently quarantined individuals, of which some considered “high risk”, escaped afraid for vaccination fearing that the vaccine would kill them or give them Ebola.

If they would have been offered the oral medicines they would have taken them like candy and the risk for them to infect others would have been minimized to almost zero and protected the nation for new cases. The mission of institutions and organizations such as WHO, major foundations, and NGOs like MSF and Partners in Health is to improve public health and relieve human suffering. 

They should be indifferent to the question of whether Ebola treatments should target the virus or the host response; they should have been interested in any treatment that is effective and saves lives.


On 27 September 2016, the Islamic militant, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, who helped destroy the fabled shrines of Timbuktu has been sentenced by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Den Hague to nine years in prison in a groundbreaking case that prosecutors hope will deter other attacks on heritage sites around the world.

On 11 August 2014, WHO convened an Ethics Panel to consider and assess the ethical implications of the potential use of unregistered interventions for Ebola (EVD). The panel reached consensus that in the particular circumstances of this outbreak, and provided certain conditions are met, it is ethical to offer unproven interventions for which the safety and efficacy have not yet been demonstrated in humans as potential treatment or prevention. Key conditions relate to the evidence and ethical basis for the assessment of each intervention.

There should be a strong scientific basis for the hypothesis that the intervention will be effective against EVD in humans: the unregistered interventions to be offered should have been demonstrated to be safe and efficacious in relevant animal models, and in particular, in non-human primates. In addition, use of such interventions should be based on the best possible assessment of risk and benefit from the information available at a given time. Ethical criteria must guide the provision of such interventions and should include:

transparency about all aspects of care; 
 informed consent;
·  freedom of choice; confidentiality;
·  respect for the person; preservation of dignity;
·  and involvement of the community.
· The panel advised that there is a moral obligation to collect and share all data generated, including from treatments provided for compassionate use.


An online petition to save Excalibur, a 12-year-old rescue dog, had been left at home alone after his owner Ebola-infected nurse Teresa Romero tested positive, drew more than 375,000 signatures. At the same time in West Africa, 10,000 infected poor people were dying and the West closed its borders. Nobody in the streets to protest against the slow and non-effective response from W.H.O. and other health organizations.

The ethical question; “What counts more, the destruction of fabled shrines of Timbuktu or the lives of ten thousand Ebola patients and families in West Africa now and in the future and to protect future generations in South and North?”

If in 2016, the ICC is able to prosecute and sentence a crime against cultural heritage, it should also be possible to prosecute W.H.O. for malicious neglect causing the death of Ebola victims in West Africa and causing economic disaster for the region. Or will W.H.O. have political immunity?

This immunity does not count for former African leaders who were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for genocide and crimes against humanity while also having political immunity. Will ICC measure with two sizes and unequal caps or will justice be done?

Reacting to the World Health Organization's apology.


  1. This design is incredible! You most certainly know how to keep a
    reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Excellent job.
    I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
    Too cool!

  2. Quality articles is the main to invite the users to go to see the website,
    that's what this web page is providing.