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

Saturday, April 28, 2018

WHAT WILL CAUSE A DEADLY EPIDEMIC IN THE NEXT DECADE?


The world could potentially face a deadly flu epidemic to generate money for corrupt pharmaceutical companies

The world could potentially face a deadly flu epidemic to generate money for corrupt pharmaceutical companies


Sometime ago World Health Organization WHO, Bill Gates, and Ab Osterhaus, medical adviser of the Dutch government, warned that the world will be very “vulnerable" to a deadly epidemic in next the decade. 

And we all know the facade after the so-called proclaimed Flu epidemic and the increasing value of Ab Osterhaus' shares.

But we all know the WHO has lost authority, at least it is “thinly stretched” and doesn't function well. And things are running for the worse. Leading such a moloch it’s going to be a tough job with ongoing structural concerns about the functioning of the WHO.

Much dates back to WHO's poor response to the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa of April 2014, when it took months to declare a global emergency, compounded by an underwhelming response to the 2009-10 H1N1 flu pandemic and latterly an underreaction to the health problems in the civil war in Syria. And this isn't all.


Authoritative British Medical Journal


In a publication in the British Medical Journal, Professor Joel Negin of the University of Sydney and Dr. Ranu Dhillon of Harvard Medical School cited an outbreak of tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea as indicative of the WHO’s typically “slow response” to disease outbreak crises. They suggested he needs to be radical reform WHO.

And indeed they're right because the WHO has moved from being a global health ambassador to a persnickety lifestyle watcher, campaigning on subjects like sugar taxes, obesity and against the effects of smoking in films.

At an anti-tobacco conference WHO left itself open to accusations of censorship after banning the press. And the tobacco lobby claims the crackdowns on its industry can be traced directly to the terms of Bill Gates’ endowment, a fanatical anti-smoker.

But Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who funded about $300m. to the WHO. And believe me, as a WHO ambassador, Gates not only pays the salary of hundreds of WHO employees but he has also a lot to say.

WHO accused of spreading fear using Dutch Prof. Ab Osterhaus

Yes, the WHO also stands accused of spreading fear using Ab Osterhaus and his proclaiming of a deadly Flu pandemic causing millions of deaths.

Take cancer, for example. Does meat, or charred food, or polyester increase a person’s risk of developing the disease? Or are all those things safe? 

Some believe this widespread confusion does with mixed messages from France-based WHO agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which last year published a list of no fewer than 989 things likely to cause cancer including phones, meat, plutonium, mustard gas, and glyphosate.

But it goes without saying the report caused also an outbreak of skepticism about the functioning of the WHO because the WHO is only concentrated on infectious diseases nowadays. Yes, members of the United Nations, the WHO is struggling to get a grip with global health emergencies in a meaningful manner and they will lose more of that because of their hats problem with the (pharmaceutical)industry.


What should be the highest priority of the WHO?

Improving living conditions should be the highest priority of the WHO, but this is not the case. Why? Have policymakers not learned anything from history? How did the prosperous Western countries overcome the high mortality from infectious diseases? 

As far as our research in the past four decades is concerned and described on our blog “Secrets of Aids and Ebola facts Journal” this was not because of vaccines!

There is no doubt about the effect that the industrial revolution had on the outbreak of epidemics. When the people went to the cities in search of work, we saw the mortality rates of infectious diseases increase enormously. 

European countries that are prosperous today were developing countries in the 19th century, complete with hunger and slums without toilets or garbage collection as happens now in the third world.

And just as heart and vascular diseases have to do with fatty food and lack of exercise, high death rates from infectious diseases have to do with extreme poverty, pollution, overpopulation contaminated vaccines prescribed by WHO. But it is very simple. But if we change, then the diseases that result from our behavior also change. They decline, or they cease to exist.


The worldwide vaccination policy of the WHO


To 'fight' infectious diseases instead of solving the cause the WHO has set up a Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP). It comes down to vaccinate each and every person on this planet.

To achieve this goal, the WHO has divided the world into six regions and developed specific strategies that are tailored to the different regions. The European Vaccine Action Plan (EVAP) focuses on what it takes to stop the declining vaccination rate in Europe. Out of sight from the citizen, the EVAP was signed in 2014 by all European member states. In this way, they agree with the sub-goals of the WHO.

Vaccination has the highest priority for each country and every individual must understand and claim the value of vaccines. Subsequently, the benefits of vaccination are extended to each individual by innovative strategies.

Furthermore, strong systems that deal with vaccination are an integral part of a well-functioning healthcare system, and finally, vaccination programs should have access to predictable funding and high-quality vaccine supplies.

The WHO uses worldwide mortality figures to convince citizens in affluent countries that 'childhood diseases are dangerous diseases' and vaccines 'life-saving'. Nothing is less true. Healthy children are born with an immune system that normally works very well. 

Child diseases have an important role in the development of a strong and healthy immune system and are only dangerous diseases for malnourished children. 

Vaccines disrupt the natural development of the immune system, which may result in a reduction in resistance. And then we are not even talking about vaccination side effects.

An organization that claims to occupy itself with the health of the world's population should initially ensure that most conditions are fulfilled for the inhabitants of third world countries and especially Africa, the continent of WHO human guinea pigs.

A decrease in the mortality from infectious diseases would, just as we did 150 years ago, emerge naturally there. Why does the WHO choose to preserve the underlying cause, extreme poverty, and to take the fight against the consequences such as iatrogenic diseases caused by medicines and vaccines?


Should WHO vaccination programs have access to predictable funding?


The strategy of the six major industries producing alcohol, cars, weapons, food, medicine, and tobacco has turned out to be surprising. Their policy is almost always aimed at circumventing, disproving or restraining government measures that could impede the sale of their own products, and that has very harmful effects on public health.

And the governments? This is particularly sensitive to the wishes of the industries and is not able to effectively protect its citizens against the marketing of downright dangerous products.

Yes, dear readers, the power of the multinationals, the lack of government and the growing pressure on the healthcare is devasting the world.

Over the past decades, the executives of a few hundred companies have turned the world into their own hands, creating the epidemics of the twenty-first century.

For instance, pharmaceutical companies charged such high amounts for their medicines against HIV and diabetes that those who needed the drugs could not afford it. And the pharmaceutical industry only is able to publicize certain diseases that only they can cure and not our own good old immune system.

Who pays for WHO?

TheWHO, an institute of the United Nations, is financed in part by dues paid by the Member States. The amount each Member State must pay is calculated relative to the country’s wealth and population. Additional financing comes from voluntary contributions which, in recent years, have accounted for more than three-quarters of the Organization’s financing.

Voluntary contributions come from Member States and partner organizations such as foundations and civil society and contributions from the private sector, usually in the form of in-kind donations, provide less than 1% of WHO’s financing.


And the WHO guidelines assures us that it will not accept money from drug companies?


But in practice, it not only seems that the WHO is an extension of the industry it is an industry itself. And the donations from the interested parties are apparently nothing more than an investment? The hats problem of the WHO can be assumed when reading...

https://bit.ly/2Hz9XDh


Benedetto Saraceno Director of WHO's Department of Mental Health


The British Medical Journal (BMJ) seems to show that in June 2006 Benedetto Saraceno, the director of WHO's department of mental health and substance abuse, suggested that a patient organization accept $10 000 (£5000; €7000) from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on WHO's behalf.

The sum was then to be passed on to WHO, ostensibly with the intention of obscuring the origins of the donation. GSK withdrew its offer of funding when it learned that acceptance was conditional on obscuring its origin. However, the email exchange indicates that other sums of money originating from drug companies may have already been channeled to WHO through patient groups.

When asked about this correspondence, Dr. Saraceno told the BMJ that his email to the patient organization was “clumsily worded” and that he had “never intended to solicit donations from the pharmaceutical industry through” the patient organization.

In the email dated 16 June 2006, Dr. Saraceno thanks Mary Baker of the European Parkinson's Disease Association (EPDA), for raising the $10 000 “requested by the WHO.” The money was to have funded a report on neurological diseases, including Parkinson's disease, for which GSK produces treatments.

Dr. Saraceno then seems to advise Mary Baker on how to get around the WHO's rules forbidding drug industry funding. “Unfortunately,” he says, “WHO cannot receive funds from pharmaceutical industry. Our legal Office will reject the donation. WHO can only receive funds from Government agencies, NGOs, foundations and scientific institutions or professional organizations.

Ralph Edwards Director of WHO's drug monitoring center Uppsala

Doctor Ralph Edwards, the director of the WHO's drug monitoring center in Uppsala, Sweden, warns, it wasn't only the mental health division that was being pushed by financial necessity to get closer than was desirable to the drug industry.

“These days it's so hard to find anyone completely free of the pharmaceutical industry. A couple of years ago we wanted to publish a safety report on Lapdap (chlorproguanil-dapsone), the combination malaria treatment.

The WHO's tropical disease research group had developed the treatment jointly with Glaxo, but Glaxo wasn't happy with what we wanted to publish.

According to Edwards; “This was a bad situation and it was very, very difficult. We raised the issue with WHO because we thought that there had not been enough safety studies done. We managed to get the report published eventually, after a lot of lobbying and pressure, but it was delayed for more than a year.


Ab Osterhaus, the Dutch virologist has shady deals with global pharmaceutical companies with impunity

Ab Osterhaus, the Dutch virologist has shady deals with global pharmaceutical companies with impunity


It's an example of how torturous it is working with pharmaceutical industries' money. GSK stated at the time of the dispute that it “totally disagrees with the assertion that there is concern about Lapdap” and maintains that it is; “an effective and well-tolerated therapy for the treatment of malaria.” 

The company claimed that; “A draft of the WHO Lapdap report which GSK was given sight of contained many inaccuracies.”

But again in practice, the WHO is an extension of the industry. And the donations from the interested parties are simply put, an investment! As described before, the hats problem of the WHO can be assumed when reading.

No comments:

Post a Comment