Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
DISCLAIMER
The health advice contained within this book is for educational purposes only and is not intended for medical purposes. The author and publisher of this book are not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the use, misuse or dis-use of the information presented here.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
• Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and
indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any
way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
• NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not
distribute the modified material.
• No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures
that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or
where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your
intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how
you use the material.
More details here.
3
Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Controversies of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General ...................................... 7
Tigray People’s Liberation Front ............................................................................................................... 7
Covering Up Cholera Outbreaks? .............................................................................................................. 8
Elected as Director General of WHO ........................................................................................................ 9
President Robert Mugabe ....................................................................................................................... 10
Relationship to Taiwan ........................................................................................................................... 12
Handling the Coronavirus Pandemic....................................................................................................... 12
WHO – Patterns of Corruption Part 1.................................................................................................... 15
Who Controls the WHO? ........................................................................................................................ 15
Trust WHO ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Tobacco Science and WHO Consultants ................................................................................................. 18
Captured Agency by Big Pharma ............................................................................................................. 19
WHO Fueling the Opioid Epidemic ......................................................................................................... 21
Former WHO Director General Warns of Pharma Industry Taking Over ................................................ 22
Another WHO Whistleblower ................................................................................................................. 23
Swine Flu (H1N1) Pandemic .................................................................................................................... 24
Rampant Conflicts of Interest ................................................................................................................. 26
WHO and Chernobyl ............................................................................................................................... 27
WHO and Fukushima .............................................................................................................................. 29
WHO – Patterns of Corruption Part 2.................................................................................................... 31
WHO Spends More on Travel then AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria ...................................................... 31
Vaccines are Safe and Effective…but We Don’t Know How Many People They Kill ............................... 33
The Goal is Universal Vaccination ........................................................................................................... 34
Informed Consent…By Default ................................................................................................................ 36
WHO’s Breach of Ethics with Malaria Vaccine ........................................................................................ 38
The COVID19 Pandemic .......................................................................................................................... 39
Separating Families for Quarantining ..................................................................................................... 40
Believe the WHO…or Believe the WHO? ................................................................................................ 40
WHO Urges Sweden to Revise Course .................................................................................................... 42
Antibodies = No Immunity ...................................................................................................................... 43
4
Funding and Defunding the WHO ........................................................................................................... 44
WHO Largely Funded by Gates Foundation ............................................................................................ 45
Trust the WHO – Mainstream Media and Big Tech All Do… ................................................................... 47
Closing Thoughts ..................................................................................................................................... 48
About the Author ........................................................................................................................................ 50
5
Introduction
I am not happy to have written this. I wish, truly wish, that the WHO was a shining
beacon of health practices and humankind coming together to support each other.
Alas, that is not what I find when I look at the data.
Many people choose to stick their head in the sand about such issues. I get that. It’s
not fun to look at. It is tremendously disruptive to a calm, consensus worldview.
Yet, I look for the truth…wherever it leads me.
In my health journey, I saw 70 year old’s in amazing health as an ideal worth
emulating. I found that simple things like changes to diet, elimination of
environmental toxins, various lifestyle practices were all that was needed to cure
many diseases. There were plenty of people that were bucking the standard
medical system and were so much healthier for it.
Personally, I would have been fine to go down this road myself. To continue
building my businesses and teaching others who wanted to be taught.
But they went too far. They started taking away rights. They made mandates on
what I knew to NOT be in my own best interest for health. For me and my family. I
knew I had to start to fight against this.
Furthermore, they began to censor anyone who spoke up against this in subtle
ways. With that happening, I knew I had to fight NOW before it was too late.
So I started writing. I revealed the corruption hiding in plain sight. I named names. I
wouldn’t pull my punches any longer.
Contrary to the public perception, the WHO and related organizations do not want
us to be healthy, sovereign individuals. But I do. And I will fight for it.
What follows is about 40 hours of research. While fairly comprehensive, it certainly
doesn’t cover everything but will give you an overall glimpse into the WHO and how
they operate.
This is extensively referenced. I am not asking you to take my word for it. Perhaps
that is why I quote people so much! Dig in yourself and verify these things. If I am
wrong, if you can refute anything you see here, I would love to hear it. You can
reach me directly at [email protected].
6
But I think if you do look, you’ll find everything I say is backed up.
The WHO is held up as the worldwide authority on health. Based on their track
record, they should not be. They’re not my authority. I do not consent.
If you agree with me and find this useful, please share this report freely. Send it to
the people you’ve been talking to. Post it online. Do anything with it you choose, as
long as you keep it intact. You can link to it at http://loganchristopher.com/who
And there is much more. I am writing regularly on all things related to this
Pandemic going on right now. My main focus is health, but I’m talking about
economics, government and more too.
You can find my other articles, and signup to receive notification of new ones, at
http://loganchristopher.com/pandemic/
7
Controversies of Tedros Adhanom
Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General April 22, 2020
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has served since 2017 as the Director-General of
the World Health Organization. He is the first non-medical doctor to do so, instead
a PhD in community health.
(Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)
Previously, he was the Minister of Health from 2005 to 2012 and Minister of Foreign
Affairs from 2012 to 2016 in Ethiopia.
Tigray People’s Liberation Front
Tedros is a member of the TPLF, an ethnic based leftist political party. The TPLF is
actively listed as a perpetrator in the Global Terrorism Database, based on ten
incidents from between 1976 and 1990.
New York Times reports Tedros “was the country’s foreign minister, and during this
time the government suppressed dissent. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International reports describe villages displaced, protesters massacred by the
police, dissidents tortured and journalists imprisoned. Dr. Tedros is not accused of
participation, but he is among the ruling party elite. The rights violations ‘should
never have happened,’ he said.”
8
Here is one such voice that fought against Tedros saying he WAS responsible. The
Amharas are an ethnic group in Ethiopia, comprising one third of the population.
The Amhara Professionals Union produced this paper, “International Organizations
Leadership Recruitment Policies: the Failed Experiment of Dr. Tedros A.
Ghebreyesus Candidacy for WHO Director General Position”
The executive summary lists out 13 points, of which they say Tedros is guilty,
specifically against their people:
1. Discrimination/Marginalization
2. Crime against Humanity
3. Systematic genocidal violence
4. Biased policies, inaction and impartiality
5. Corruption and misuse of budget
6. Disregard for Humanity
7. Incompetency/Inaction
8. Lack of transparency
9. Maleficence and risking public safety
10. Poor judgement
11. Lack of accountability
12. Violation of basic Human Rights/Suppression of freedom of expression
13. [Lack of] Integrity/Truthfulness/Honesty
The document appears to back up all the claims with statistics and references in
this 70 page document.
The terrorist TPLF helped fund Tedros’ bid for WHO director.
Covering Up Cholera Outbreaks?
Tedros has been accused of covering up previous epidemics, specifically three
times with cholera in Ethiopia. To be fair, these accusations were from an adviser to
an opponent in his WHO directorship. Of course, Tedros denied these accusations.
But these were not completely baseless. Earlier articles discussed unnamed health
officials in Ethiopia (Tedros was top health person at the time) of not wanting to test
what would ultimately be labelled “acute watery diarrhea” for the cholera microbes.
This was because of fear of affecting food exports and tourism.
A telling section of that NY Times article says, “Under the International Health
Regulations, which apply to all W.H.O. members, countries must accurately report
9
disease outbreaks. But the W.H.O. can officially report only what countries say.
Historically, some countries have tried to cover up or play down outbreaks of
human or animal diseases for fear that travel restrictions would be imposed,
tourism would suffer or food exports would be curtailed — or simply as a matter of
national pride…The regulations were strengthened after China denied for months
in 2003 that it had a serious outbreak of lethal respiratory disease in its southern
cities. That outbreak ultimately became known as SARS, for severe acute
respiratory syndrome, and spread to several other countries, including Canada.”
(emphasis added)
Elected as Director General of WHO
Elections are done by secret ballots. This allows for backdoor deals to be cut. Laurie
Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, tells of a prior election
for the WHO director in 1991.
“I was in a queue at the post office when the conference room door flung open at
my back and an enormous rolled rug flew out, narrowly missing me and landing
with a loud thud that couldn’t cover the sound of an African minister of health’s
roaring voice.”
“A rug! A rug?” the large East African woman shouted at a trio of Japanese diplomats
scampering out of the chamber. “You think you can buy my vote with a rug? Do you
think I am that cheap?”
“The enraged minister then loudly delineated a list of “promises” (a.k.a. bribes) the
Japanese had reportedly made to other voting members of the executive board,
including construction of a hospital, payment of school fees for the children of
Switzerland-based nationals employed at WHO, promised employment in plush
Geneva for friends and family of the would-be voter and a range of big construction
projects. The episode was astounding not because it transpired, but that it did so in
front of many witnesses, including an American journalist.”
Understanding the backroom deals are made for organizations such as the WHO
(and certainly not the only one) is helpful for understanding geopolitics.
New York Times reports “Tedros was elected with the strong support of China…He
has firmly backed Beijing’s claims to have been open and transparent about the
outbreak, despite strong evidence that it suppressed early reports on infections.”
10
In 2012, the African Union headquarters was built in Ethiopia for $200 million. This
was the largest construction project since the 1970’s paid for by China. This was
one construction project of many. CNN reports, “While Beijing defends its aid
practices on the grounds they are neutral and respect recipient nations’
sovereignty, Chinese money is not wholly unpolitical.”
“China’s President Xi Jinping pledged $60bn for development in Africa,” which
included $4 billion for the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway.
Tedros himself mentioned in 2015 on Facebook, “Under the “Go Global” program of
#China, we expect increased Chinese investment flow to #Ethiopia . The 8 industrial
parks identified throughout #Ethiopia , some already under construction, will
facilitate the migration of Chinese companies to #Ethiopia”
I don’t know exactly what sort of deals went down, but it is clear that Tedros is very
much tied to people in power in the Chinese Communist Party and the money that
flows because of such.
President Robert Mugabe
Current events are not the first time that Tedros is facing calls to resign. In 2017, he
appointed Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe as the WHO’s goodwill ambassador
for non-communicable disease in Africa.
Here’s a bio video if you’re not familiar with this socialist revolutionary turned
dictator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9vMcMXs6s
11
A Guardian article wrote, “Mugabe rigged elections and began a programme of land
reform in which white farmers were forcibly evicted to make way for Zanu-PF party
cronies or black Zimbabweans who lacked the skills and capital to farm. This helped
throw the economy into disarray. Hyperinflation ran riot and supermarket shelves
were empty. The once-proud school and health systems began to crumble. The
political environment also became increasingly hostile, with activists and journalists
persecuted, jailed or murdered. More than 200 people died in political violence
around the 2008 election, which Mugabe was widely seen as having stolen from the
MDC’s Morgan Tsvangirai.”
Tedros said, “I am honoured to be joined by President Mugabe, of Zimbabwe, a
country that places universal health coverage and health promotion at the centre of
its policies to provide healthcare to all.”
Please note that Mugabe did not use Zimbabwe’s healthcare, instead traveling
Singapore for himself and his family.
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) wrote a withering report of Mugabe’s
government. “What happens when a government presides over the dramatic
reversal of its population’s access to food, clean water, basic sanitation, and
healthcare? When government policies lead directly to the shuttering of hospitals
and clinics, the closing of its medical school, and the beatings of health workers?
We don’t need to wonder. It is happening now in Zimbabwe. PHR has witnessed the
devastation caused by the willful neglect of Zimbabwe’s people by the Government
of Robert Mugabe.”
Even the US state department said: “This appointment clearly contradicts the
United Nations ideals of respect for human rights and human dignity.”
The appointment was rescinded under the private and public outcry. Wasn’t this
obviously a bad idea to Tedros before it happened? Many think that this
appointment was payback to both Mugabe and China.
“Hillel Neuer, executive director of the watchdog organization UN Watch, told me,
“It’s clear that this was a prize, if not compensation, for something.” Tedros may
have been rewarding Mugabe for supporting his nomination to the WHO post last
year, when Tedros was Ethiopia’s foreign minister and Mugabe headed the African
Union… Beijing strongly supports Mugabe, and Mugabe has repaid the favor,
helping to ease pressure from Africans who criticize China for exploiting Africa’s
12
natural resources. In December 2015, Mugabe gushed about Xi at the China-Africa
summit in Johannesburg,” from the Washington Post.
Relationship to Taiwan
The day after being elected as Director, Tedros reiterated the WHO’s adherence to
the one-China principle, meaning that Taiwan would not be recognized.
This has led to the well-circulated video of WHO official, Canadian epidemiologist
Bruce Aylward dodging questions about Taiwan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM
This is particularly interesting because “Taiwan said its doctors had heard from
mainland colleagues that medical staff were getting ill — a sign of human-to-human
transmission. Taipei officials said they reported this to both International Health
Regulations (IHR), a WHO framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and
response data between 196 countries, and Chinese health authorities on December
31. Taiwanese government officials told the Financial Times the warning was not
shared with other countries.”
Handling the Coronavirus Pandemic
Here is a good and short overview video on the WHO’s response, which covers
some of the other things mentioned here.
13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c07MnRmJPcI
On Jan 14th, the WHO tweeted “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese
authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the
novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China”
On January 28th, Tedros talked about China including, “the transparency they have
demonstrated, including sharing data.”
Please note that China has officially revised their stats, increasing them by 50%
as reported on April 17th. (As if these new numbers should be taken as the truth.)
Meanwhile, coronavirus whistleblowers in China are still missing.
The WHO didn’t even send a team to China until February 10th.
On February 15th, Tedros stated, “China has bought the world time.”
Meanwhile, “John Mackenzie, a member of the WHO executive committee, publicly
stated that international action would have been different if not for China’s
“reprehensible” obfuscation of outbreak’s extent.”
In a recent report put out by the WHO, Tedros stated: “It has now been more than
100 days since WHO was notified of the first cases of what we now call COVID-19,
and much has changed since we launched the first Strategic Preparedness and
Response Plan two months ago… One of the main things we’ve learned is that the
14
faster all cases are found, tested and isolated, the harder we make it for this virus
to spread.”
Are you kidding me? I have never been a health minister. I’m not a part of the WHO.
I’m not an infectious disease expert. But I could have told you from the very
beginning of this that finding cases, testing them and then isolating them would
help. Seriously, this is what you’ve learned?
Today, April 22nd, he said, “Most countries are still in the early stages of their
epidemics and some that were affected early in the pandemic are now starting to
see a resurgence in cases. Make no mistake, we have a long way to go. This virus
will be with us for a long time. There is no question that stay-at-home orders and
other physical distancing measures have successfully suppressed transmission in
many countries. But this virus remains extremely dangerous.”
Since the WHO is the leader of the response for this pandemic that is almost
assuredly what is going to happen.
Again I ask, is Tedros merely inept at his job? Or is all this a sign of corruption? I
leave you to judge for yourself.
Yet this only scratches the surface. In the next article I’ll be detailing patterns of
corruption from the WHO over the years. Lots of other people have been covering
Tedros as of late but I went far and wide to round up what’s coming next.
History is the best indicator of future performance. History of the WHO helps give
perspective on current events. Because they are the worldwide health authority
now we should know if they deserve that status.
15
WHO – Patterns of Corruption Part 1 April 24, 2020
In this post the goal is to paint a broader picture of the controversies surrounding
the WHO over the years. It ballooned in size because the more you dig the more
you find, so it will be split to two parts.
The goal of this is to make a more critically informed decision on whether we really
should be looking to this organization as the authority on health in the COVID19
pandemic or any other matter of health.
But first a little bit of how I feel it is best to think about the WHO, or any large
organization.
Who Controls the WHO?
Is it China? Is it Bill Gates? Is it Big Pharma? (Many people are latching straight onto
their favorite enemy right now.)
But control is not a useful word to be using. The world is messy. Lots of people
want to dismiss any “conspiracy theories” because they often point out that control
of something so complex, or too many people involved which would be complicit,
that this idea is ludicrous.
And I agree with that for the most part. Systems are complicated with many
interlocking parts.
That’s why the way I see it, it’s not so much about control as about influence.
If Big Pharma can get policies and decisions swayed in their favor just 10% of the
time, as I’ll prove shortly they’ve done over and over again, that gives them an
unfair advantage. If one high-up person is “in their pocket” and they make a
decision on a policy that has lasting impact this has occurred.
This then means through time they’ll continue to benefit allowing for more similar
actions to be taken. In other words, the 10% compounds over time.
It also means that the one person becomes two, becomes five. Any degree of
corruption at high levels allows for more corrupt people, not less, to gain more
16
power. After all, almost all of these positions are appointed not elected. (And we
know elections can be gamed too!)
Corruption spreads. In a backroom deal someone basically says you do this thing
for us you’ll get the position. With the position you help us gain more profits and
power so we incentivize the next person…
At the same time corruption stops “good people” from being successful. They get
locked out in one fashion or another. We’ll see examples of that from employees of
the WHO blowing the whistle later on.
If Gates can earmark certain funds he donates to specific projects, and those
projects involve buying drugs from companies he is invested in, personally or
through his foundation, that’s a serious conflict of interest at the very least. He then
gains money that allows him to further influence the WHO. This topic will be
explored further in part two.
Understand, because the WHO is a large organization, with about 7000 employees,
these kinds of things can be occurring while there are also legitimate, good life-
saving projects also being done. It’s not black and white or an either/or thing, it is
both/and situation.
Although systems are important, understand that these come down to people
making decisions. Thus, it may be best to think of the people involved in a few
different buckets:
1. There are some really good people that are genuinely striving to solve the world’s
health problems.
2. There are some that are simply bureaucratic types that may not influence things
one way or another. They’re largely just doing their jobs, punching the clock.
3. There are some that are undoubtedly and fully corrupt. (Remember, sociopaths
exist and they have a higher than average chance of rising in position because of
such!)
4. There are those that allow corruption in small ways (such as a consultancy fee from
a pharmaceutical company). As we know from doctors that attend pharma-
sponsored events, meals or receive kickbacks, they make think they’re then making
independent choices but their actions show they’ve been swayed. (One study
example here.)
17
The saying is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With
these types of people involved and with money involved, corruption is pretty much
inevitable…even if the majority of people are in group one!
The question is not whether the WHO is corrupt or not. Instead the big question is
how much corruption is involved? How much harmful influence is involved? This
exploration is not exhaustive but is meant to give us some answers to these
questions.
Trust WHO
Several things mentioned here I found out because of the documentary Trust Who
by Lillan Franck. If you have Amazon Prime you can watch it free.
This video was recently removed from Vimeo a few days ago due to violating their
policies. Here you can see comments on this from the producer of the film as well
as a clip from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjQGyqVN5RM
If you’re interested, I suggest watching the documentary soon. Amazon has
similarly censored documentaries before due to political pressure so it may not be
18
available there for long. More on increasing censorship surrounding the WHO at
the end of this part two.
I report below on several things learned from that documentary, but certainly not
everything. And I also share other things that are not covered there at all.
Tobacco Science and WHO Consultants
Tobacco having big effects on health, it has been a major focus of the World Health
Organization for a long time.
Of course, tobacco science, lobbying and various other methods were very effective
in keeping this from happening for many years. Thomas Zeltner, one of the good
guys, chaired a committee which looked at Big Tobacco’s influence on the WHO
itself. This resulted in the report “Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine
Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization” in July 2000.
“No Adverse Effects” – Science has been bought for a long time
Just a few quotes from inside:
• “Evidence from tobacco industry documents reveals that tobacco companies have
operated for many years with the deliberate purpose of subverting the efforts of the
19
World Health Organization (WHO) to control tobacco use. The attempted subversion
has been elaborate, well financed, sophisticated, and usually invisible.”
• “In one of their most significant strategies for influencing WHO’s tobacco control
activities, tobacco companies developed and maintained relationships with current
or former WHO staff, consultants and advisors. In some cases, tobacco companies
hired or offered future employment to former WHO or UN officials in order to
indirectly gain valuable contacts within these organizations that might assist in its
goal of influencing WHO activities. Of greatest concern, tobacco companies have, in
some cases, had their own consultants in positions at WHO, paying them to serve
the goals of tobacco companies while working for WHO. Some of these cases raise
serious questions about whether the integrity of WHO decision making has been
compromised.”
• “[T]obacco is unlike other threats to health. Reversing the epidemic of tobacco use
will be about more than fighting addiction and disease; it will be about overcoming a
determined and powerful industry, many of whose most important counter-
strategies are carried out in secret.”
It is so interesting to read through this 260 page document. (I’ve only skimmed it.)
The vast majority of tactics and strategies are laid out. It is well-known that Big
Tobacco engaged in this type of multi-pronged warfare and propaganda.
But most people just can’t see it being done in other areas like medicine despite
lots of proof of it happening.
Captured Agency by Big Pharma
If you’re not familiar with the term, a “captured agency” is a government agency
unduly influenced by economic interest groups directly affected by its decisions.
With capture those groups are able to shape regulations and policies that further
benefit them.
The following comes from WikiLeaks from back in 2009.
“This is a confidential pharmaceutical industry trade association dossier about the
WHO Expert Working Group (EWG) on R&D Financing. The International Federation
of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA; “Big Pharma”) gave its
members 4 documents: a non-public draft report of the WHO EWG and a non-
public Comparative Analysis done by the working group, the IFPMA Overview of the
EWG Comparative Analysis, and IFPMA summary slide on the EWG Draft
Report. The compilation of documents shows the influence of “Big Pharma” on the
policy making decisions of the WHO, the UN body safeguarding public health. These
20
confidential documents were obtained by the drug industry before their public
release to WHO member states (scheduled to be released May 2010). The
document also illustrates that the WHO expert group was highly responsive to
industry lobbying — a result that public health groups had feared since early 2009,
when the expert group met with the industry, but refused to meet with public
health groups known to be industry critics.” (emphasis added)
Julian Assange, founder of Wiki-Leaks, is still in jail right now for spreading the truth.
For example, here’s a quote from inside of one of the documents. “While the overall
result is in line with most of the industry positions on this matter, please note that
the EWG is currently meeting and there is still room for them to introduce new
language. We will update you as new information become available, and will keep
monitoring closely the process in these days should any input be requested from
friendly EWG Members.”
This is the definition of captured agency! Understand it doesn’t mean that Big
Pharma wholly owns the WHO. It means they’re able to get some policies made in
their favor.
Those policies typically involve the buying of their product, giving them more profits
that can then be used to do more lobbying and regulatory capture.
Here is a specific example of the results of such…
21
WHO Fueling the Opioid Epidemic
My Medical Monopoly Musings covered some of the ruthless tactics of
pharmaceutical companies in spreading opioids across the US and the world. (See
#20-#24 for specifics.)
How they did fraudulent science to show that opioids weren’t addictive. How they
bribed doctors and professional organizations and hospitals. How they even got
into the opioid addiction treatment business to cover both ends of the game. How
the DEA tracked the numbers but did nothing.
Before my research this morning, I was not aware of how the WHO was involved.
But of course they were!
In 2019, US Congress representatives Katherine Clark and Hal Rogers, released the
report Corrupting Influence Purdue & the WHO: Exposing Dangerous Opioid
Manufacturer Influence at the World Health Organization. Some revelations
include:
• The WHO Collaborating Centre for Policy and Communications in Cancer Care at the
University of Wisconsin Pain & Policy Studies Group received $1.6 million from
Purdue Pharma from 1999 to 2010.
• The official WHO guidelines, “Achieving Balance in National Opioid Control Policy:
Guidelines for Assessment,” relies on “the oft-repeated Purdue claim that
dependence occurs in less than one percent of patients, despite no scientific
evidence supporting this claim and a multitude of studies contradicting it.”
• The WHO changed its policy to recommend Oxycontin in both steps 2 and 3 of its 3-
step pain ladder, whereas previously they were just in one step. This was Purdue’s
goal to sell more drugs.
• “The WHO is unambiguously recommending that highly addictive opioids should be
available to children even though they openly recognize that there is little evidence
to support that recommendation, and that any further research on the topic would
‘likely’ change the suggested course of action.” Wow! Actually it doesn’t surprise me
because drug companies do prey on children.
• The report concludes, “The World Health Organization is intended to be a steward of
the public trust. By allowing Purdue and the opioid industry to influence guidelines
on how opioids should be prescribed and regulated, the WHO has violated that
trust. The agency owes the public an explanation. The WHO must explain why these
documents have been crafted with the input of people with decades of financial
relationships with the opioid industry and written to include specific policy changes
envisioned by Purdue.”
22
This stuff is complex, purposefully so in order to hide
and confuse how influence plays a role.
With major money you can influence plenty of key people and organizations as this
map shows.
Pain management is just one of many topics covered my the WHO.
Former WHO Director General Warns of Pharma Industry Taking Over
Halfdan Mahler was the WHO Director General from 1973 to 1988. In 1988 the
Danish newspaper Politiken warned against exactly this happening with the
pharmaceutical industry. He was quoted as saying, “the industry is taking over
WHO.”
23
That was back then! Remember once corruption has a foothold it expands over
time. The WHO changed their policy to allow private funding in or around 2005.
This allows for more industry influence.
An article in the Journal of Integrative Medicine and Therapy by Søren
Ventegodt states, “The results from the Cochrane reviews, which most researchers
regard as a much more reliable source of information on medicine than the data
coming from the pharmaceutical industry itself, clash harshly with the
recommendations of WHO in its drug directories…Many drugs listed in the WHO
drug directories, like “WHOs model list of essential medicines”, have no value as
medicine according to Cochrane reviews, since the drugs are dangerous, often
harmful, and without significant beneficial effects for the patient.”
Unfortunately, the drug companies now have their influence spread into the
Cochrane reviewers and databases too! But it started out as a noble and useful
venture but they couldn’t allow good science to continue to refute them.
Another WHO Whistleblower
“At a meeting between the Director-General and prospective vaccine manufacturer
most of our colleagues were excluded. Me too. I was a head of department in the
WHO and one of the Director General’s closest associates, an important member of
staff in the organization. On that specific day I went down to the conference room
and the person at the door said: “No, this is a private meeting.’ Even though I was a
leading official at the WHO, responsible for an important topic that was under
discussions there. I wasn’t allowed to enter. That demonstrates that there wasn’t
enough transparency about what was being negotiated.”
Dr. Germán Velásquez, WHO Director of the Secretariat on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property until 2010
24
I’m hypothesizing here but such a meeting could involve an agreement on a policy
or decision that would benefit such a manufacturer just like we saw evidence of
with opioids. Likely, there would be some sort of quid pro quo in doing so for the
WHO or specific people at the WHO.
Once again, there are good people at the WHO that really want to help.
Unfortunately, these people are locked out, quit or otherwise have their influence
minimized as the corrupting influence spreads.
I was trying to find out the specific dates Velasquez worked at this position and I
stumbled on an interesting report about him. (pg. 9-10)
Back in 2001 he was the Director of WHO’s Drug Action Programme. He was
mugged and robbed in Rio de Janeiro. Two days later he was attacked again in
Miami on Lincoln Road with one attacker saying, “Let’s hope you learnt a lesson
from Rio. Stop criticizing the pharmaceutical industry.” Then ten days later he
received a midnight phone call which asked him “Are you afraid?” He asked what
this was about and the reply was “Miami, Lincoln Road.” Later the same voice called
him telling him not to attend a World Trade Organization meeting on drug patent
rights.
As is shown across the world, Big Pharma has ways of getting people aligned to its
interests and of criticizing, hampering and threatening those that refuse to play
ball.
What else would you expect from “organized crime” which the pharmaceutical
industry fits the definition of?
Swine Flu (H1N1) Pandemic
Back in 2009, ABC News reported, “The World Health Organization may have
inadvertently triggered a new wave of fear over the threat of a swine flu pandemic
today by suggesting that up to 2 billion people could be infected if the current
outbreak worsens.”
Only 11 years ago, yet if you review this case you see some interesting parallels…
The WHO changed their rules about levels of pandemic for this one, lessening the
severity of disease required. “When then asked by a CNN reporter to explain the
decision to declare Phase 5 in the light of the fact the WHO had previously
25
maintained a pandemic entailed large numbers of human fatalities and severe
illness, the response of the secretariat was to delete its guidelines from its website.”
The new guidelines. Severity of disease no longer included.
The reason for the change? A level 5 pandemic would then activate policies already
in place where countries had to buy drugs and vaccines.
The Council of Europe is an official United Nations Observer. They launched an
inquiry into the WHO’s handling of the pandemic scandal. The resolution for the
inquiry stated, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu,
pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible
for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them
squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly
expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects
of insufficiently tested vaccines.”
Wolfgang Wodarg, chair of the Council of Europe states in the documentary, “The
situation was evaluated correspondingly by the Council of Europe. Reprimand was
issued. The lack of transparency, the role of the experts who were being paid by the
pharmaceutical industry. Then changes were demanded, but the WHO didn’t
respond to the Council of Europe. The WHO only turned up for the first hearing and
then didn’t come again. It didn’t have to. It isn’t obliged to supply us with any
information. We can’t demand to confiscate the files, look through them. It is
impossible. There isn’t anybody who can do those things. And there’s no
investigating commission like in Parliament where the MPs can go and say
26
something has to stop and then everybody has to turn up and show their files.
There’s nothing like that. The WHO can operate in a very clandestine fashion.”
So nothing much changed…
As I previously reported, in the US, the CDC did similar things, including stopping
actual counting of the swine flu cases while reporting large numbers and telling
people to get he vaccine.
Rampant Conflicts of Interest
How is this all possible? Conflicts of interest of course. Articles in the BMJ point out
more detail:
“WHO enduringly failed to have a policy regarding conflicts of interest…Juhani
Eskola (Finland) a member of the WHO group ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’
(SAGE) has received 6 million Euros for his research center from the vaccine
manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline during 2009.”
“WHO chose not to disclose financial conflicts of interest among industry sponsored
experts guiding its influenza policy.”
Disclosure is not always clear. Regarding these the BBC reported, “It is not clear
whether these conflicts were notified privately by WHO to governments around the
world, the BMJ said, and a request to see conflict of interest declarations was
turned down. In addition, membership of the “emergency committee” which
advised WHO’s director general Margaret Chan on declaring an influenza pandemic
has been kept secret. It means the names of the 16 committee members are known
only to people within WHO, and as such their possible conflicts of interest with drug
companies are unknown.”
Of course, as should be expected, the WHO dismissed this stuff as “conspiracy
theories.” Let’s see. You’re having secret meetings. You’re hiding conflicts of
interest. You change your long held rules and cover that up. Your partners make a
boat load of money from doing so…but nothing to see here folks!
There’s plenty more examples. “Dr Neil Ferguson reported receiving small
consultancy fees from Baxter, GlaxoSmithKline and Roche for serving on scientific
advisory boards and presenting at symposiums. He also received limited amount of
consultancy fees from insurance companies (Swiss Re, RMS Ltd.,) and Serco Ltd., a
27
logistics company for advice on pandemic risk and planning. These payments
occurred prior to 2008.”
You might recognize Ferguson’s name as one of the people behind the Imperial College
model for the coronavirus pandemic that was used as justification for many countries
going into quarantine. The same model that was latter downgraded in deaths.
I’m very curious as to what exactly those “small” and “limited” consultancy fees are.
He’s part of SAGE, Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, that advises the UK
and don’t reveal any information about their doing so. (Because science done in
secret is always the best way to do science!)
So we have a wide range of disclosed, partially disclosed and undisclosed conflicts
of interest. This, the money flowing, is how corruption occurs. It’s not just Big
Pharma, but we see it elsewhere too.
Genetically modified food, pesticide use or EMF’s. (Yeah, we haven’t even covered
those areas but it happens in them all.) And it happens in nuclear energy too…
WHO and Chernobyl
Drug companies are not the only regulatory capture problem!
28
I don’t know much about Chernobyl. It happened when I was one year old. Just
recently I watched the HBO limited series on it. Obviously, I do not take the show as
what really happened, but it was eye-opening nonetheless.
Here is what the WHO says regarding Chernobyl on its website:
“A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international
team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. As of mid-2005, however, fewer
than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost
all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the
accident but others who died as late as 2004.”
Fifty directly dead? That number seems very low if you know anything about
radiation. Does it seem low to you?
Robert Parsons, a freelance journalist, wrote, “For 55 years, as of May 29, 2014, the
World Health Organization (WHO) has been under the heel of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in matters regarding ionizing radiation and health. The
IAEA, whose mandate is the promotion of everything nuclear, has thus prevented
the WHO from carrying out its public health mandate in a world more and more
exposed to the lethal effects of ionizing radiation.”
If you want to dive deeper into this matter, then read Parsons article . There’s
plenty more to this story such as:
• The 1995 WHO Chernobyl Conference as organized by then Director General Dr.
Hiroshi Nakajima that drew 700 scientists. Although the proceedings from the
conference were promised, these never appeared. After retirement, Nakajima said
that these were blocked by the IAEA.
• Meanwhile the New York Academy of Sciences published a translation of a 2007
Russian publication that calculated the death toll from 1986 to 2004 at 985,000. Just
a bit different from the official WHO estimate!
• Because of all this Independent WHO, a grassroots movement, held a daily protest
from 8am to 6pm in front of WHO headquarters every single working day for ten
years (from April 26th 2007 to April 26th 2017). Their goal was to remind the WHO
that it is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of
radioactive contamination. After a decade of continued official denial they stopped
the protest to focus on other methods.
29
10 years of protest. The WHO remains silent…
WHO and Fukushima
With that track record in Chernobyl, it shouldn’t be so surprising that we see more
failings for the WHO in regards to Fukushima.
NY Times reported in an piece titled, ‘W.H.O. Sees Low Health Risks From
Fukushima Accident’ that “A study published on Thursday by the World Health
Organization on the health risks associated with the disaster at the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant suggested that the risk for certain types of cancers had
increased slightly among children exposed to the highest doses of radioactivity, but
that there would most likely be no observable increase in cancer rates in the wider
Japanese population.”
On this, Alison Katz said “I worked for the World Health Organisation myself for 18
years and since I have left I have been involved with ‘Independent WHO’, which
works in the area of radiation and health…The Japanese people are already talking.
And they are reporting very, you know, very serious health effects in children that
the World Health Organisation is ignoring, is not talking about, doesn’t mention in
its report. You know, at the time of Chernobyl the people couldn’t talk freely…The
other major omission is that the World Health Organisation has never considered
anything except cancer as a health effect.”
30
Meanwhile, the director-general of the WHO at the time Margaret Chan
acknowledges that no amount of radiation is good to get in direct contradiction to
the WHO and IAEA. “For me, no radiation inside the body is good.”
Industry influence. Cover-ups. Denial of science. Internal censorship. Check, check,
check, check.
Can you believe we’re just getting started? Even more in the next part…
31
WHO – Patterns of Corruption Part 2 April 28, 2020
We continued to show that the World Health Organization (WHO) is a corrupted
organization. To recap, in part one we saw the following:
• How “Control” of the WHO is less useful to think about than “Influence”
• How corruption would build in a large organization like the WHO, even if most of the
people involved were good
• The censorship of a documentary (TrustWHO) that critically looked at the WHO
• How Big Tobacco was able to influence and infiltrate the WHO in order to continue
to rake in profits. Long after this occurred, the WHO put together a committee to
analyze how it happened. The report they produced is eye-opening because it’s a
playbook of tactics…one that other industries are using against the WHO today
• A Wikileaks document dump showing the WHO took policy notes from Big Pharma
• How the WHO helped to fuel the opioid epidemic making policy straight from what
Purdue Pharma wanted including bad science and over-prescribing
• A former Director General of the WHO, Halfdan Mahler stating Big Pharma “is taking
over WHO” back in 1988
• Other whistleblowers, like Dr. Germán Velásquez, WHO Director of the Secretariat,
being attacked by Pharma and locked out of important meetings
• The Swine Flu and how the WHO changed how the grading of pandemic levels were
altered in order for Big Pharma to sell more drugs to countries
• Several examples of rampant conflicts of interest in employees and policy makers
• The WHO’s cover-up of Chernobyl and Fukishima deaths, denying radiation causes
anything besides cancer
That was part one. Now, let us continue…
WHO Spends More on Travel then AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The Associated Press obtained internal documents showing that the WHO spent
$200 million a year on travel expenses. This is more than what they spend on
several major diseases combined, including AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
32
That comes out to $28714 per employee!
This came out at a time when the WHO was pleading for more funding because it
was going broke!
Remember Dr. Bruce Aylward, the man who pretended not to hear the question
about Taiwan’s coronavirus response and then hung up the phone? Turns out he
“racked up nearly $400,000 in travel expenses during the Ebola crisis, sometimes
flying by helicopter to visit clinics instead of traveling by jeep over muddy roads,
according to internal trip reports he filed.”
Speaking about then Director-General Margaret Chan, “Three sources who asked
not to be identified for fear of losing their jobs told the AP that Chan often flew in
first class.” She spent more than $370,000 that year. Always good to strike fear into
your employees for telling the truth!
Travel is certainly necessary, but are these people using funds that ought to be
better spent as their own slush fund?
33
Vaccines are Safe and Effective…but We Don’t Know How Many People
They Kill
The party line is always that vaccines are safe and effective. Dr. Soumya
Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at will tell you exactly that. In this video you can hear
her talk about how “vaccines are very safe.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPSpyEi01VI
Yet, then at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, in Geneva, December 2-3,
2019, she said,
“I cannot overemphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety
monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to miscommunication and the
misapprehensions. Because we are not able to give very good clear-cut answers
when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular
vaccine, and this always gets brought up in the media. One should be able to give a
factual account of what has happened and what the cause of deaths are. But in
most cases, there is obfuscation and therefore there is less trust in the system.”
Here’s a deeper dive including commentary that covers the many different people
at the WHO summit talking about various areas in which they actually don’t have
good safety science.
34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1xey8zlyQo
The Goal is Universal Vaccination
The Immunization Agenda 2030 envisions “A world where everyone, everywhere, at
every age, fully benefits from vaccines for good health and well-being.”
“Immunization is the foundation of the primary health care system and an
indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can
buy.”
Here’s the truth. Most anti-vaxxers aren’t really anti-vaccine. They simply want the
choice to be able to opt-in or out for themselves or their children. Many are ex-
vaxxers because someone in their families were injured severely. They want proper
education about risks and benefits (aka informed consent) so people can make a
good choice about this pharmaceutical intervention. The problem is that choice is
being eroded.
The WHO and related organizations are very clear that “vaccine misinformation” is
their enemy.
“Uptake of vaccination depends on [limiting] the spread of misinformation about
the safety and effectiveness of vaccines [to] sustain trust in vaccines…and to build
resilience against misinformation. The harm being caused by anti-vaccine
messaging, especially on social media, should be addressed by understanding the
35
context and reasons for lack of trust and by building and keeping trust, especially in
the face of fear and distrust in traditional establishments. Strategic investments to
increase trust and confidence in vaccines, in particular through strong community
engagement, would increase community support for vaccines and ensure that
vaccination is viewed as a social norm.”
Contrary to what they say, it is not so much the spread of misinformation, but of
real information. People are starting to pick up on this as which is why trust in
vaccines is going down. And this is why censorship is increasing.
They even are going so far to say that when vaccines cause injuries they aren’t
really from the vaccine! Instead it’s all in people’s heads, aka “immunization stress-
related responses”. How many times have doctors used this excuse when they
simply don’t know what is going on? (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, EMF
hypersensitivity, etc.)
36
I get it. I agree that misinformation would be best not to be shared.
But you know what is labeled misinformation? Any information and studies that
show that there are risks to vaccines. That means they’re not really clamping down
on misinformation but instead are spreading propaganda.
Informed Consent…By Default
The WHO also has a document called, “Considerations regarding consent in
vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old” which is an
interesting read.
Early on they state, “For consent to be valid, it must be informed, understood and
voluntary, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.”
Yes, I think everyone agrees with this.
But then, one of the three common approaches listed on the next page is implied
consent. “An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent
vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including
letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of
37
the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination
session, is considered to imply consent.”
In this day and age after the #metoo movement, guys are scared to make a move
on women because they don’t have implicit and verbal consent. Yet, a medical
procedure can be done with less consent then going in for a kiss?
Doesn’t make much sense to me. Could a pedophile send out information about
themselves to parents, such as an arrest record on a postcard, then get away with
groping a child saying they parent had implied consent by not keeping them away?
Don’t think so!
Charles Weijer, a bioethicist at Western University in Canada, says that implied
consent is “no substitute for informed consent. Indeed, implied consent is no
consent at all. We have no assurance that parents in fact received information
about [vaccination studies] let alone that they understood
it.” https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-02/b-wmv022520.php
While this document is focused on adolescents, similar ideas are applied elsewhere.
Understand, adult coronavirus vaccination mandates are coming…
“Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal
nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant
provisions in law, consent may not be required.”
Most of my readers are in the US so you might want to know about ‘Jacobson v.
Massachusetts.’ This Supreme Court case upheld the authority of states to enforce
compulsory vaccination laws. “The Court’s decision articulated the view that the
freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare
and is subject to the police power of the state.”
I do expect there will be new laws passed or changed to make this easier, as was
done in Denmark. The vaccine people are quite clear that they want mandatory
vaccines for every person. They might not be able to actually force it on you. Maybe
it’s fines or imprisonment if you opt out. Maybe it’s that they make it so that you
can’t participate in something if you don’t get it. We saw this with children not being
allowed to go to school in several states. What appears to be the plan is that you
will not be allowed to travel without vaccination. So yes, you can opt out, but then
you’ll lose these privileges.
38
Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the Western Pacific, “At least until a
vaccine, or a very effective treatment, is found, this process will need to become
our new normal.” We’re locked down until the vaccine is here.
Understand, that is where this is going.
WHO’s Breach of Ethics with Malaria Vaccine
All that about informed consent was to help you to understand a study going on
right now.
Mosquirix, also known as the RTS,S vaccine, is produced by GlaxoSmithKline. (To
give some background, GSK has paid $4.4 billion in fines in the US since 2000 for
false marketing and claims, safety violations, bribery and more. This includes a $3
billion lawsuit where they withheld critical safety data from the FDA.)
GSK also gave $7.365 million to the WHO in 2017, and $24 million in in-kind
contributions. (That’s a good way to get tax breaks as you’ll get the fair market value
for vaccines and drugs donated.)
A large scale study, led by the WHO, of Mosquirix’s effects is being conducted in
Malawi, Ghana and Kenya. This study will involve 720,000 children of which implied
consent is given.
Congratulations, you have been selected to be a part of a medical experiment…and
we won’t even let you know about it. Your consent is implied because we sent some
pamphlets out even though they didn’t disclose all the information about a
doubled-death rate in girls in the earlier trial.
This violates the Nuremberg Code…you know what was put in place to stop medical
experiments such as the Nazi’s conducted.
Why is this worrisome? A BMJ article sums it up well:
• Phase III trials of the RTS,S malaria vaccine identified three safety concerns: higher
risks of meningitis, cerebral malaria, and doubled female mortality (emphasis
added)
• Owing to the urgency of improving malaria control, the World Health Organization
intends to decide on extending the vaccine to other African countries after only 24
months using the prevention of “severe malaria” as a surrogate marker for overall
mortality
39
• Severe malaria is not a good marker for all cause mortality; it is not even a good
marker for malaria mortality, as data indicate that case fatality from severe malaria
might be higher in the malaria vaccine group
• An early decision after 24 months might be biased in favour of the vaccine, which
was more efficacious in the first year of follow-up in the phase III trials; the relative
risks of both cerebral malaria and female mortality increased after the booster dose
at 20 months
• We recommend that the pilot studies use “overall mortality” to assess vaccine
performance and that study populations are followed for the full 4-5 years of the
study before a decision on rollout is made
Meanwhile, this study specifically violates the Malawi constitution which states, “No
person shall be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without his or
her consent.”
Right now, there’s a petition on Change.org that’s just under 6,000 signatures away
from 35,000 needed to try to change this.
More details about this can be found in this article.
There are so many issues around the WHO’s use of vaccines. Just to give a taste of
some others, the Open Letter from International Organisations to the WHO on the
Issue of Vaccine Safety states:
“In your previous meeting you advocated for less independent testing, considered
‘redundant’, in order to speed up the supply of products. The recent administration
of 250,000 defective vaccines in China, the tragedy of the oral polio campaign in
India with over 450,000 cases of paralysis and death, the damage caused by the
Dengue vaccine in the Philippines reports from all over the world of chronic pain
and paralysis after administration of the HPV vaccine show that vaccine safety and
efficacy are being tragically disregarded in this drive for fast-tracking approval and
easy certification.”
The COVID19 Pandemic
Let’s turn gears to look at some other controversial parts of the handling of the
COVID19 pandemic.
40
Separating Families for Quarantining
“Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and
remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
– Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO Health Emergencies Programme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v3vlw14NbM
I don’t know anyone who would agree that that’s a good idea! Do you?
It’s not hard for anyone to imagine this becoming even more totalitarian. If all the
state has to do is show you that you’ve “tested positive” and you disappear.
Believe the WHO…or Believe the WHO?
More than 50% of our planet is in some form of lockdown. There’s the ever popular
social distancing. There are travel restrictions and curfews. Contact tracing is the
new hot technological term. How well do these work?
Turns out the WHO wrote a report in October 2019 that looked specifically at the
scientific evidence for them.
The WHO follows the best science, right? (The best science money can buy!) So it
was interesting to find this their own scientists said what we’re doing isn’t the way
to go. All those mentioned above had little to no scientific evidence.
41
Notice what is “not recommended in any circumstances” and “extraordinary
measures.”
“Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not
recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there
would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”
And yet here we are quarantining even non-exposed people!
Dr. Mike Ryan, who wants to separate families as deemed necessary, has stated,
“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass
population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the
opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”
42
Yet, regarding masks, this same report states, “Recommended for symptomatic
individuals, and conditionally recommended for public protection. Given the costs
and the uncertain effectiveness, face masks are conditionally recommended only in
severe influenza epidemics or pandemics for the protection of the general
population, but are recommended for symptomatic individuals at all times.”
If they can’t even get masks right (the CDC similarly flip-flopped on the matter), do
you really trust them with bigger health ideas?
WHO Urges Sweden to Revise Course
“The World Health Organization (WHO) is skeptical of Sweden’s approach. Noting a
fresh surge in the country’s infections, the WHO told CNN Wednesday that it’s
“imperative” that Sweden “increase measures to control spread of the virus,
prepare and increase capacity of the health system to cope, ensure physical
distancing and communicate the why and how of all measures to the
population,” reports CNN.
Earlier on during the pandemic I was rooting for Sweden to not cave into the
political and media pressure. I felt it was important that they stick to their guns so
that we had a “control group” compared to all the countries who locked down. So
far, so good!
Time will still tell, but it seems that this is spun in each direction depending on
which set of facts you look at.
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/ (April 25th update)
43
Unfortunately, even if this is the case, it will be explained away as an aberration
because that is how you control the narrative.
Antibodies = No Immunity
In their April 24th update, the WHO said, “There is currently no evidence that people
who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a
second infection.”
No evidence is a strong phrase, not to mention one that flies in the face with how
immunity tends to work.
Yes, there certainly are some cases of people being infected with SARS-CoV-2 more
than once. But does that make for “no evidence”?
This caused another uproar. And the WHO walked back their statements the next
day, tweeting:
Earlier today we tweeted about a new WHO scientific brief on "immunity
passports". The thread caused some concern & we would like to clarify:
We expect that most people who are infected with #COVID19 will develop an
antibody response that will provide some level of
protection. pic.twitter.com/AmxvQQLTjM — World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) April 25, 2020
This whole concept is more interesting because antibodies are how most vaccines
work. This gives rise to the idea, with fast-mutating coronavirus strains, that it
would need to be an annual shot like the not-very-effective influenza vaccine.
44
Funding and Defunding the WHO
Personally, I think Trumps calls to defund the WHO are a good move. On April
14th he said, “Today I am instructing my administration to halt funding of the WHO
while a review is conducted to assess the WHO’s role in severely mismanaging and
covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”
The interesting thing about this is that if it comes to pass, it makes the Gates
Foundation the biggest funder of the WHO, so we’ll turn there next.
But first look at just how much Big Pharma contributes. This is from the 2017
report.
• Bayer $1,158,060
• Bristol-Myers Squib $215,730
• GlaxoSmithKline $7,365,666
45
• Gilead Sciences $3,124,450
• Hoffmann-La Roche $6,628,090
• Merck $1,912,226
• Novartis $500,000
• Sanofi Pasteur $9,411,491
• Sanofi-Aventis $2,634,963
I listed just some of the more recognizable pharmaceutical companies’ names. This
does not include the many organizations these companies contribute to that then
contribute to the WHO such as CDC Foundation ($3.2 million), Rockefeller
Foundation ($748,945), and many others.
And overall, it’s not that much compared to the total $2.1 billion privately donated
that year (compared to $1 billion from member states, that is governments).
But understand that these donations are devoted to specific projects as picked by
the donors.
Can you say conflicts of interest? You can read more about how these financial
contributions violate the WHO’s own guidelines in this article.
WHO Largely Funded by Gates Foundation
Looking at the same 2017 report, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave
$324,654,317 to the WHO.
This is in addition to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, which the Gates Foundation is
heavily funding, which gave $133,365,051. Or The Global Fund which gave
$16,170,654, which the Gates Foundation has pledged $650 million from 2017-
2019.
I start with this sharp criticism from a WHO employee of the Gates Foundation’s
influence. Arati Kochi was the chief of the malaria program at the WHO. He
complained to then director-general Chan that the money could have “far-reaching,
largely unintended consequences.”
In 2008, New York Times reported:
46
Many of the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with
their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group,” Kochi
wrote. Because “each has a vested interest to safeguard the work of the others,” he
wrote, getting independent reviews of research proposals “is becoming increasingly
difficult.”
Also, he argued, the foundation’s determination to have its favored research used
to guide the health organization’s recommendations “could have implicitly
dangerous consequences on the policy-making process in world health.”
Kochi, an openly undiplomatic official who won admiration for reorganizing the
world fight against tuberculosis but was ousted from that job partly because he
offended donors like the Rockefeller Foundation, called the Gates Foundation’s
decision making “a closed internal process, and as far as can be seen, accountable
to none other than itself.”
Moreover, he added, the foundation “even takes its vested interest to seeing the
data it helped generate taken to policy.”
There have been hints in recent months that the World Health Organization feels
threatened by the growing power of the Gates Foundation. Some scientists have
said privately that the foundation was “creating its own WHO.”
Another New York Times article from 2017, wrote that “the Gates Foundation…has
claimed for itself a core W.H.O. role: “’diagnosing the world’s health problems and
identifying the solutions.’”
That’s interesting. Just because Bill Gates was formerly the richest person on the
planet, he’s become qualified to diagnose and solve the world’s health problems?
As many people point out he is not a doctor, not medically trained, not scientifically
trained, instead a businessman.
As a Politico article put it, “Some billionaires are satisfied with buying themselves an
island. Bill Gates got a United Nations health agency in Geneva.”
Kochi is not the only critic. Far from it. Some details from the Politico article:
47
“The term often used was ‘monopolistic philanthropy’, the idea that Gates was
taking his approach to computers and applying it to the Gates Foundation,” said a
source close to the WHO board.
However, his sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear
that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big
business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine
WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.
But the foundation’s focus on delivering vaccines and medicines, rather than on
building resilient health systems, has drawn criticism. And some NGOs worry it may
be too close to industry.
There’s a reason I wrote Robber Baron Philanthropists. I believe Gates is today’s
prime example of just that. The fact is you do not have to believe he’s an evil
eugenicist to see that there are problems with his approach. I hope to clearly
outline the various possibilities so we’ll be exploring details about him more in the
future.
Trust the WHO – Mainstream Media and Big Tech All Do…
AP News reports, for years now, people at the WHO have been pressuring Big Tech
to “to take more aggressive action against anti-vaccination misinformation.”
With the pandemic, censorship has been kicked up another notch. Andy Pattison is
the manager of digital solutions for the WHO. “Pattison said he and his team now
directly flag misleading coronavirus information and, at times, lobby for it to be
removed from Facebook, Google and Google’s YouTube service.” These and others,
like Twitter, have been “cracking down in unprecedented ways.”
In fact, you’ll be censored if you say anything that is not following the guidelines of
the WHO. Yep, the people that have THIS track record I’ve been sharing are the
definitive authority for the world and your information.
A few days ago, CEO of Youtube, Susan Wokcicki said they’ll ban anything against
WHO guidelines. This includes “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”. “So
people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples
of things that would be a violation of our policy,”
48
Let me get this straight. The WHO is the authority who chooses which information
is “correct”. So what is are the big tech people supposed to do when the WHO
contradicts themselves regarding transmission of the disease, wearing masks, or a
variety of other things?
Twitter really should have deleted the WHO’s tweet that there was no evidence of
antibodies giving immunity!
I haven’t seen anyone saying they have cures for coronavirus, though I’m sure
they’re out there. I see a lot of people talking about how vitamin C is necessary for
immune system support. It seems to me this message should be propagated rather
than clamped down on.
Type in ‘vitamin c immune’ in PubMed and you get 989 results. The second of these
is ‘Intravenous Vitamin C for reduction of cytokines storm in Acute Respiratory
Distress Syndrome.’ This review concludes: “It is believed that IV Vit-C has been
particularly effective by inhibiting the production of cytokines storm due to
Corvid19.” (sic)
And now I am officially a spreader of misinformation. Oh wait, I’ve been doing that
all along because I’ve been talking about vaccines in other than glowing terms!
Meanwhile, the FBI raided a spa that offered high-dose IV vitamin C to support
people’s immune systems, particularly front-line workers like hospital staff.
This is what happens when the medical cartel makes the rules on what we can do
and say.
Closing Thoughts
Having explored all this it is abundantly clear to me that the WHO is not really
about health. They’re about disease. It’s the pharmaceutical disease-care model all
over and little else. This is further and further being propagated into mainstream
and online media notably through censorship.
While I’m sure there are still good people around, it is clear that the conflicts of
interest are rampant which breeds corruption. The WHO is influenced heavily by
Big Pharma. They’re influenced by Gates who appears to be intimately involved with
the medical cartel.
49
The WHO is influenced by China’s Communist Party, which is a whole other layer.
And, to be honest, I’m not sure how that fits in with all the rest, though I figure I’ll
find some more when digging deeper into Gates.
It comes down to this:
Do you believe that pharmaceuticals are the route to health?
No, then the World Health Organization is not your authority.
Health does not come from a pharmacist. It does not come at the tip of a syringe.
I’m not saying those don’t have their uses either, but it seems to me if the WHO was
really about health, things would be far, far different.
50
About the Author Logan Christopher owns Lost Empire Herbs along with his two brothers. This ecommerce company is dedicated to bringing the super heroes of the herbal world into the lives of humans to help assist health and performance. This includes herbs that most people haven’t heard of such as pine pollen, shilajit and ant extract. Some of the main focuses for both men and women are hormone optimization, sexual health, enhancing workouts, longevity, and cognitive performance with guaranteed results. This company was born out of seeking to enhance athletic performance, starting from his first company. Logan also runs Legendary Strength which teaches people the lost art of strength training. Everything from bodyweight training, kettlebells, barbells, grip strength and oldtime strongman feats. As a performing strongman Logan has done such feats as pulling an 8800 lb. antique fire truck by his hair, juggling a kettlebell that was lit on fire, supporting over half a ton in a wrestler’s bridge, ripping a deck of cards into eighths and much more. These can be seen online on his Best Of page here. He has written over 15 books, including Mental Muscle, Powered By Nature, Upgrade Your Breath, Upgrade Your Testosterone, The Master Keys to Strength & Fitness, The Ultimate Guide to Handstand Pushups, The Indestructible Body and more. He is also a Neuro Linguistic Programming Trainer and holds certifications in Hypnosis, Emotional Freedom Technique and Energy Medicine. All of these methods he has taken and applied to health and fitness. He lives in California, in the Santa Cruz mountains along with his wife Charlotte, daughter Elka and three cats, Ragnarok, Valhalla and Thor.
