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

Sunday, February 12, 2017


Many don't care about the medical crimes of the World Health Organization because Africa suffers most but Aids is a global issue

Sea of Ebola victims buried at Waterloo Cemetery in Freetown

Many don't care about the medical crimes of the World Health Organization because Africa suffers most but Aids is a global issue

About 70% of the world's population, including the uneducated in the remotest part of Africa, knows that the Ebola epidemic which struck and claimed lives in the three West African countries, namely, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea wasn't natural.

Events of the rapid change of the world will lead to the confession of WHO. Time will tell, so we are not going to force the World Health Organization, the Centers for Diseases Control and the American government to speak the truth about the medical bio-weapon which was triggered in those poor West African countries. 

However, as independent writers and investigators, we shall continue to provide evidence that the World Health Organization was responsible or played a major role in the rapid spread of the deadly disease that killed thousands of people in West Africa.

Already the World Health Organisation has admitted mishandling the early stages of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, saying it failed to recognize the risks of the disease in the fragile states of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Ref:

The important questions are: Must the world believe or Africa accepts this apology if the significance of bio-weapon is to depopulate or kill? Such apology is unnecessary since as officials of a health institution, they know how deadly Ebola is but they deliberately delayed for the disease to kill as planned.

In the midst of confusion and desperation, the World Health Organization were killing the Ebola victims as well as making money out of their misery. It is obvious that the US Centers for Diseases Control wants to make money on the particular strain of Ebola 'EboBun' they own. The reason they rejected many successful treatments for Ebola victims in Sierra Leone. 

After the 'Ebola Attack Team' healed 25 Ebola victims in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, they were hoping that the country's Minister of Health and the World Health Organization will give them permission to continue the treatment, instead, they were grounded and the medication came to an end.

The Ebola Attack Team didn't want to throw in the towel. Since they knew how effective the medication was so they did everything to persuade the World Health Organization to give them the permission but all efforts were fruitless. Below is one of the replies of letters from the World Health Organization written to the 'Ebola Attack Team.

Dear Mr. Tijssen,

Thank you for your email of January 23, to WHO that was addressed to Drs Zipursky and Davis. In that email, you made a number of statements including that you have been 100% successful in 25 patients in Port Loko and that these medicines (statins and angiotensin receptor blockers) were administered to patients in Kenema, Moyamba, 

Hastings and 34 Hospital; know in medical circles in Sierra Leone that statins and angiotensin receptor blockers were 100% successful and that WHO immediately and consistently blocks the use of these medicines. You request a confirmation that WHO has no objection to the use of these medicines to manage EBOV. 

As a reply to your statements and questions I would like to set the record straight:

The approval for the use of any drug to treat a condition is the sovereign right of the National Regulatory Agency of the country, and WHO does not interfere with the decision-making of such an Agency. Our role is to provide guidance to the National Regulatory Agency on whether or not the evidence supports the safety and efficacy of a drug for a particular indication. 

If a Regulatory Agency wishes to approve a drug for a use for which we do not have supportive data, we do not object but may indicate the absence or insufficiency of available data. There are currently no drugs that are registered for the treatment of EBOV. 

On August 11, 2014, consultation on the ethical use of unregistered interventions for EVD, it was concluded that it is ethical to offer unproven interventions to Ebola patients providing that certain conditions are met, including the requirement to collect and share data (on drug efficacy and safety), and the need for such interventions to be provided under appropriate ethical conditions including but not limited to  informed consent and freedom of choice.

We note that despite numerous requests from the WHO you have not been able to provide data on drug efficacy or safety in this patient population. We do not accept your personal statement of 100% success (efficacy) as evidence and require access to the data to enable us to determine how many patients have received these drugs, what their clinical condition was at the time of initiating treatment and what the clinical outcomes were. 

Until such data are provided we cannot assess drug efficacy, and therefore cannot recommend use. We further note that in addition to the statins and angiotensin receptor blockers that you mention, at least one other drug was also used in some of these patients, namely clomiphene, a fertility drug. 

The contribution of this drug to any reported recovery will also need to be clarified. We have received from your partners indication of an initial request to the National Regulatory Agency to conduct a trial with these drugs. 

However, we have no indication that approval for such trials was ever provided, nor that the use of these experimental interventions was conducted under appropriate conditions, as highlighted in the WHO guidance of August 11th, including the need for (documented) informed consent of the patients enrolled in the trial.

At present, therefore, we have no substantive evidence that any of the drugs that were provided to the patients had any effect on the outcome of Ebola infection. On the basis of this, we cannot recommend to the National Regulatory Agency approval for the use of these drugs in the treatment of Ebola. 

Should you be able to provide detailed supportive evidence from the use of these drugs we would be happy to review these data and may then be in a position to issue a recommendation. 

Dr. Martin Friede
Team Leader Ebola Experimental Therapies
World Health Organization

The opinion of the writers of this blog

According to WHO, the approval for the use of any drug to treat a condition is the sovereign right of the National Regulatory Agency of the country, and WHO does not interfere with the decision-making of such an Agency. Our role is to provide guidance to the National Regulatory Agency on whether or not the evidence supports the safety and efficacy of a drug for a particular indication.

But over the past decade, research efforts by the WHO have been invested into developing drugs and vaccines for Ebola virus disease. Some of these have shown promising results in the laboratory, but they have not yet been evaluated for safety and efficacy in human beings. 

The large number of people affected by the West Africa outbreak in 2014, and the high case-fatality rate have prompted calls to use investigational medical interventions to try to save the lives of patients and to curb the epidemic. In fact, the opposing games by WHO during the Ebola crisis prompted others to investigate WHO.

On August 11, 2014, WHO convened a consultation to consider and assess the ethical implications for clinical decision-making of the potential use of unregistered interventions. 

In order to understand the safety and efficacy of these interventions, the WHO group advised that, if and when they are used to treat patients, there is a moral obligation to collect and share all data generated, including from treatments provided for ‘compassionate use’ (access to an unapproved drug outside of a clinical trial).

There was unanimous agreement that there is a moral duty to also evaluate these interventions (for treatment or prevention) in the best possible clinical trials under the circumstances in order to definitively prove their safety and efficacy or provide evidence to stop their utilization. 

Ongoing evaluation should guide future interventions and in addition to this advice, the panel identified areas that need more detailed analysis and discussion, such as ethical ways to gather data, while striving to provide optimal care under the prevailing circumstances, ethical criteria to prioritize the use of unregistered experimental.

Therapies and vaccines, ethical criteria for achieving fair distribution in communities and among countries, in the face of a growing number of possible new interventions, none of which is likely to meet demand in the short term. 

A report of the meeting proceedings will be available to the public by 17 August 2014. Twelve Declarations of interest for advisors and four for resource persons were reviewed. No conflict of interest was declared by any of the advisors. 

Dr. Fred Hayden, one of the resource persons, declared that “he and his University have received compensation for his time in reviewing one patent case regarding Zanamivir (GSK) and medicolegal cases involving fatal influenza and delayed use of Oseltamivir (Roche).” 

It was clarified with Dr. Hayden that he had conducted the case
reviews as a full faculty member and that he had not received any remuneration for them separate from his faculty. It shall be noted that the resource persons contributed their valuable technical expertise only when requested by the chair.

Finally, every country has to comply with the international regulations of the WHO, and every country in this world is connected to the WHO. The main reason is that Fred Hayden do not want Willem to be involved in working vaccines against Ebola because he has to defend the profits of Glaxo Smith Kline GSK company and Centers for Diseases medicine.

How can the world including Africa trust the World Health Organization? Do they want us to believe them? There is no truth in this letter. It wasn't that they are not sure whether the 'Ebola Attack Team' medicine was effective or not but as previously said they want more Ebola victims to die and also make money from their 'EboBun' medication. 

It's only the morons and the uneducated will trust and hail you as a 'saviour.' The entire administration is a wolf in sheep clothing.


No comments:

Post a Comment