Why the WHO Faked a Pandemic
- Teaser: This was the title of an article in Forbes magazine in February 2010 after it was revealed that the WHO highly exaggerated that years “swine flu pandemic.
” The article revealed how the WHO insisted that the swine flu of that year was of pandemic proportion, even though at the time, it didn’t even conform to the WHO’s own definition of a pandemic. To quote from the article:
“The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO's motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the "false pandemic" is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century." Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. "We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far) in terms of public health.
Analysis of what happened led to conclusions of the need for better preparation and analysis of whether a pandemic should be called for what otherwise could be a normal flu. In the article in 2010, Swine flu: lessons we need to learn from our global experience, it states that “The WHO definition of pandemic needs to re-incorporate a component that takes into account severity as, appropriately, does one plan from the USA. If we define a pandemic (as was the case for ‘swine flu’) as merely being the spread of a new influenza virus strain around the world, we will be calling pandemics every few years. Many previous seasonal influenza strains using the current WHO definition could also have been defined as ‘pandemic strains’. Unless the severity of the infection is much worse than what we see with seasonal influenza, it is inappropriate to invoke pandemic plans internationally.”
Covid19 is not the same as the flu. It is a different virus and it has shown a unique pathological presentation different than most flus. However, the overall percentage of mortalities is so far not that different than a bad flu year and yet the WHO has consistently exaggerated Covid19 risks throughout the world, encouraging lockdowns in countries where the disease is hardly seen e.g. Africa, and also continued to push the fear of other possible flu pandemics. The article also said how the WHO then exaggerated the risks of the flu in the southern hemisphere, as it goes into its winter flu season, which is exactly what it is doing now with COVID19. Déjà vu, all over again!
Better luck next time
The WHO is trying to learn from that experience in having a vaccine ready for the next phase of COVID19, the dreaded 2nd or 3rd waves, which are now being manufactured (an increase in cases, many of them asymptomatic but with few deaths is not a 2nd wave). For swine flu, the vaccine was too late to have any real effect as the flu season ended and the costs of the vaccine weren’t justified. It is distinctly possible that this may happen again, but on a massive scale. Billions of dollars and being spent on vaccines and the virus could just disappear in time. What then? What do we do with all the vaccines we are producing? Perhaps by maintaining an exaggerated crescendo of fear about COVID19 and the global population in varying states of lockdown and tracing/tracking/quarantine measures in place, the “need” for the vaccine and the surveillance culture put in place will be justified.
This wasn’t the first time the WHO had proclaimed a flu pandemic with millions of deaths. In 2005, the avian flu H5N1 was possibly going to kill around 150 million people, according to the WHO. It didn’t. However, of course, the WHO has had to be planning for a possible pandemic for a long time, just in case. The article also quotes the WHO Secretary General, Margaret Chan who had said in September of 2009 that the devastating effect of the swine flu pandemic should be used to make "changes in the functioning of the global economy" are needed to "distribute wealth on the basis of" values "like community, solidarity, equity and social justice."” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against "international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs."
These last comments raised the hackles of the Forbes writer, seeing the faked pandemic being used as some kind of global political agenda of the WHO. Whatever one’s political stripes, the fact remains that the WHO is an organization primarily funded by the big global powers of the USA, Europe and China, but now with an added player, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As such it has always had some kind of political agenda, as have other U.N. organizations. It also sounds somewhat similar to the language of the World Economic Forum, sponsors of Event 201, predicting a global pandemic and the need for an “Economic Reset”.
Every year, the flu kills between 250,000-500,000 people worldwide, according to the US Centers for Disease Control. Exact figures are hard to come by as many are elderly where the flu happens to be one factor in a list of morbidities a person is suffering from and it may the last straw in a person’s life struggle. But every year, as flu season develops, the media tends to pump up the fear of a possible pandemic, with the long shadow of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic being used as a backdrop. That real pandemic killed an estimated 40-50 million people between 1918-1920. However, it tended to often kill young and relatively fit young people, as apposed to the normal flu which mostly affects the aged and vulnerable. Also, it was a unique time at the end of the most devastating war humanity has ever experienced and to compound things further, people were being given large amounts of aspirin which may have been making things markedly worse. These facts tend not to get mentioned when discussing possible similarities between the 1918 pandemic and COVID19.
The culture of fear and the influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Using fear to encourage people to get a flu vaccine is part of the normal strategy in many countries, especially in the USA, where each year the media ratchets up the pressure and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends everybody over the age of six months get a flu jab. No other country took things so far until now. Medical experts are often stating whether this year will see a repeat of a global flu pandemic, it being merely a matter of time before a big one hits. Therefore, the legitimate and responsible concerns about a possible pandemic have become caught in a web of influence by drug companies pushing the flu vaccines and “experts” who make a living expecting the worst. The experience now with “modellers” predicting millions dying, like Imperial College, London, who have made huge blunders in their analysis, is one example. They are now being given UK tax payers money to produce a vaccine, even though their projections have been so unreliable. They have also been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who are heavily invested in many companies making vaccines.
The WHO has been at the centre of pandemic preparations for many years and rightly so, given that it has the mandate to liaise with governments globally and to align a global policy in the event of a true pandemic. The trouble is, as the Forbes article revealed and that has been confirmed in the years since, the WHO is so infiltrated with the vested interests of private corporations, especially so-called Big Pharma and also governments that fund the organization that it is hard to believe that what it says is true. The connections between “experts” representing the WHO and Big Pharma is well documented in the following article: “The bank JP Morgan on Wall Street estimated that, thanks mainly to the pandemic alert issued by the WHO (in 2009), the pharmaceutical giants, who also finance the work of the European Science Working Group on Influenza (ESWI) run by Albert Osterhaus, were set to make $7.5-$10 billion profit.
ESWI, describes itself as “a multidisciplinary group of leaders of opinion on the flu, whose purpose is to fight against the repercussions of a flu epidemic or pandemic”. As its members themselves explain, the ESWI, directed by Osterhaus, is the central pivot “between the WHO in Geneva, the Institut Robert Koch in Berlin and the University of Connecticut in the United States”.”
“The most significant thing about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharmaceutical laboratories that are making millions thanks to the pandemic emergency, while it is the pronouncements made by the WHO that compel the governments of the whole world to buy and to stock the vaccines. The ESWI receives funding from the manufacturers and distributors of the H1N1 vaccines, such as Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others, including Novartis, who produces the vaccine, and the distributor of Tamiflu, Hofmann-La Roche.”
“Nicknamed “Dr Flu”, Albert Osterhaus, the best known virologist in the world, official consultant on the H1N1 virus to the British and Dutch governments and head of the Department of Virology in the Medical Centre of Erasmus University, has a seat among the élite of the WHO gathered together in the SAGE Group, and is president of the ESWI, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry. In its turn the ESWI recommended extraordinary measures to vaccinate the whole world, considering that there was a high risk of a new pandemic which, they insisted, could be comparable to the terrifying pandemic of “Spanish” flu in 1918”.
The above article was written before the current Covid19 crisis but shows what sorts of investments were being anticipated and planned for. The article then describes the many other conflicted relationships between “experts” representing the WHO and their connections to the pharmaceutical industry and also the many critics who have been calling the WHO out for years.
Gates Foundation and lots of money
Now in 2020 we have the unique situation in that the biggest funder to the WHO is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and not a government, since President Trump pulled the USA out of the organization. The Gates Foundation is totally committed to a vaccine solution to the pandemic and is heavily invested in companies racing to produce a drug and/or vaccine. Gates has clearly stated that only a vaccine can allow the world to return to normal and many world leaders have simply imitated him with their rhetoric, showing complete compliance to his agenda. This should be of great concern that the world of “philanthrocapitalism” is now in a unique position to influence the health policy of every country on the planet that has signed up to the WHO? The unique influential role of one organization has not been seen since the Rockefeller and the Carnegie Foundation wielded huge influence in the early years of the 20th century. This has not gone unnoticed and without criticism.. Much is now being written on how this has come to pass where very wealthy individuals and so-called not for profit organizations can exert so much influence, what is now being called the “non-profit industrial complex.”
There is an irony now that the U.S. government has shown great scepticism toward the WHO, especially in its relationship with China, which the U.S. government accuses of withholding information about the outbreak, which may be true. And yet, it is an American organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) that has taken its place as the largest donor and working closely with the National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID) under the leadership of Dr Anthony Fauci and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. It is interesting to note that the current Director General of WHO, Dr Tedros is the former Chairman of the GAVI Vaccine Alliance, a Gates funded organization, which is supported by the US and UK governments, among others. On June 6th, at an international vaccine conference in London, the UK government pledged yet more money to GAVI for its vaccine research as well as funding the AstraZeneca vaccine research at the University of Oxford and also the Imperial College, London in its vaccine research. The list goes on and on.
The WHO released a document on June 26th that lays out its plan for the next 18 months for vaccine, drug and other support needed to combat COVID19 in the next phase. It is seeking to raise $31.3 billion, $18.1 billion for vaccines for the next 18 months, coming through GAVI and CEPI, $7.2 billion for therapeutics for the next 12 months through UNITAID and Wellcome and $6 billion for diagnostics for the next 12 months, through the Global Fund and FIND. This agenda was launched in April as the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT-Accelerator), and co-hosted by the Director General of the WHO, the President of France, the President of the European Union and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is worth noting that the U.S government was not a co-host of the formal opening, or any other country outside Europe. One of the immediate goals is to produce 2 billion doses of a vaccine by the end of 2021. The therapeutics arm of the strategy will be looking at the development and distribution of effective medicines and to produce 245 million courses of these treatments for lower-and-middle-income-countries (LMICs) by mid 2021. The diagnostics pillar is looking to produce simple, affordable, high quality and rapid diagnostic tests, with 500 million of these tests available in LMICs by mid 2021. A new Facilitation Council will be formed to implement this next phase, consisting of representatives of founding countries, and participation of international organizations, private philanthropy and civil society.
If you believe that the COVID19 pandemic is of such a profound threat to humanity as the WHO and others say it is, then the above plans and investments would make sense. If, on the other hand, you think that it has been exaggerated and blown out of proportion and is now being used by many people for personal, political and financial benefit, then a different conclusion may be drawn. Already, the amount of money that has been channelled into the coffers of Big Pharma dwarfs the bank bail-out in 2008 and this is only the beginning. The $18.1 billion now needed for vaccine research alone, channelled through GAVI and CEPI, both supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, will be looking for yet more support from governments with tax payers money. Subsequent profits from any successful vaccine, will be going back to the shareholders of these companies, which includes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The citizens of these countries whose money went into these investments will maybe get a free vaccine, for their troubles – or maybe not. It may or may not work.
For the WHO, this is a repeat of 2009 pandemic on steroids. The race for a vaccine, with promises of one being ready in the fall, in spite of the fact that a corona virus vaccine has eluded vaccine researchers for many years defies belief. Even vaccine researchers are sounding out alarms over possible damage from a prematurely prepared vaccine, with memories of the SARS CO-1 vaccine trials in 2003-4 which had to be stopped and the 2009 swine flu vaccine during the last rushed vaccine attempt, which led to many claims of the harm it did.
The checkered history of vaccine research
This is not the first time that the WHO has worked with other organizations in vaccine research. It collaborated with GAVI on the pentavalent vaccine (Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Hepatitis B and HiB) in Africa South and South East Asia and India. Combining vaccines has always been controversial given possible interactions of the various strains of antigens used together and the one size fits all approach which in some sensitive children can lead to serious side-effects. Given the importance of the pentavalent vaccine for global vaccine policy and the amount of money involved, any side-effects tend to be down played or ignored. This vaccine was introduced in Kenya in 2001, and in 2005 it was introduced into Sri Lanka but was withdrawn after 5 children died from the vaccine. The WHO denied the connection to the vaccine, but in 2013, after it was introduced into Vietnam, it was also suspended after 12 infants died. However, according to GAVI, after 2017, use of the vaccine increased 80%. The Gates Foundation in India had its connection with the country’s National Technical Advisory Group on Vaccines (NTAGV) cut because of a purported conflict of interest due to Gates Foundations connections to pharmaceutical companies. The consequences of problems with the vaccines could not have been far away.
Research by Dr Jacob Pulliyel, head of Pediatrics at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi stated that the number of deaths increased precipitously after the pentavalent vaccine was introduced. He suggested that there are likely to be 7,020–8,190 additional deaths each year in India, because of the shift from DPT to Pentavalent vaccine. The response of the WHO to the alarming death rate was to adopt a new Adverse Effects Following Immunization (AEFI) classification system (in 2013) developed by the WHO with support by the Global Advisory Committee for Vaccine Safety (GACVS) that, in effect, disregards entirely infant deaths following vaccination with the pentavalent vaccine—as if they didn’t happen. In other words, the new WHO safety classification eliminates death as a result of any vaccine, including the pentavalent one so loved by GAVI and the WHO. This very system used by the WHO is not used by high income countries and therefore, the method used now by the WHO is only for lower and middle income countries, where deaths due any vaccine are not included in their figures. Dr Pulliyel is quoted as saying: Utilising data from the Government of India, we have reported that there are 4.7 additional deaths within 72 hours of immunization, per million vaccinated with Pentavalent vaccine compared to children receiving DPT instead. Using data from states with good reporting of adverse events, we estimate that there are likely to be 7020–8190 additional deaths each year in the country, because of the shift from DPT to Pentavalent vaccine. This is a huge mortality burden.
Not one of these deaths has been investigated as a ‘vaccine reaction’, according to Rebecca Chandler of the Uppsala Monitoring Center in Sweden – the global hub for drug reaction monitoring.
It may still surprise some people that vaccines can actually cause serious damage given the reluctance of governments to hold them accountable and the legal indemnity from prosecution they currently enjoy. However, there is ample evidence of significant problems with vaccine research. Medical literature is full of examples, including the vaccine for Dengue fever, called Dengvaxia, made by Sanofi that went wrong in the Philippines, leading to the programme being halted. However, the vaccine continues to be licensed by the FDA in the USA. The WHO itself has admitted that it’s own polio campaigns in many countries has led to an increase in polio outbreaks, caused by the vaccine.
Perhaps the most famous example of an over reaction to the possible threat of a flu pandemic came in 1976, when the “swine flu” that affected US army recruit in Fort Dix, New Jersey triggered fears of a repeat of the deadly 1918 pandemic. Around 48 million Americans were given a swine flu vaccine. Of these, 532 developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a neurological/paralytic condition. This left a legacy of fear and concern about rushed vaccines and exaggerated fears of pandemics. The vaccine campaign was cancelled and seriously dented confidence in vaccines amongst the population.
Further controversy of the WHO’s activities relates to the possible lacing of vaccines with hormones to induce abortion and/or sterilization. A number of vaccines have been implicated, one being the tetanus vaccine given in 2015 to pregnant women in Kenya which was revealed to have human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), which Kenyan doctors and Catholic charities said was being given to deliberately sterilize women.
Another controversial vaccine was the Human Papiloma Virus vaccine (HPV) which was given to 14-19 year old girls in India in 2009 and another similar vaccine called Cervarix in 2010 by the WHO and the Gates Foundation. In both cases, serious side-effects were seen, including some deaths, leading to the Indian government to investigate, finding that there were serious concerns regarding medical safety and a lack of informed consent in many cases. Serious concerns were found, implicating the Gates Foundation. It was then referred to the Indian Supreme Court. Even years later, the debate over this vaccine continues, with the WHO pushing the expensive vaccine and public health advocates in India saying that regular pap smears and other preventative measures are likely to be more effective. So who is the WHO really speaking for? The people of India or the drug companies pushing the expensive vaccine that hasn’t been shown to prevent cancer.
Another controversy in India was the Gates funded polio vaccine campaign which according to research may have led to up to 490,000 extra non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) and which led the Indian government to suspend Gates’ vaccine campaign. This is just part of the agenda of the Gates Foundation, working with the WHO, when it donated $10 billion to the WHO, stating this will be the decade of vaccines.
Finally, one of the most controversial issues of vaccine research that has arisen recently has been the ongoing Gain of Function research carried out on viruses to enhance their morbidity. This research has been controversial for some years, with even the US. Government suspending it from 2014-2017. However, it continued at the Wuhan Institute of Virology during this time, in partnership with the US National Institutes of Health. Many experts in the U.S. have petitioned against this research, concerned that an accidental or deliberate release of viruses that had been enhanced could lead to a devastating global pandemic. This is already being widely discussed, both in the USA and China. This fear is not helped by the fact that the Pentagon based Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has been working with various vaccine companies in creating the new DNA mRNA vaccines. Can we really trust all these actors?
And Now The Big One:
Now we have the actual pandemic that the WHO and experts were predicting and planning for, one that has brought the world to a standstill, devastating the global economy, destroying lives and leaving the world a very different place. However, if we go by the original WHO definition of a pandemic, with mass fatalities all over the world, it hasn’t happened. Africa remains relatively untouched, with just over 35,000 deaths in 1.2 billion people. India and China have had relatively few deaths for their populations, as have many other countries. The estimated total fatality rate of just over 1 million is within a normal flu season and all national statistics put it between 0.1% and 0.4%, again within normal flu seasons. This not does take into consideration the problems with the PCR testing, leading to many false positive tests, likely inflating all the figures we are being given.
However, the WHO is again rolling out the catastrophic scenarios, as it did in 2009, backed by many scientific experts and much of the world’s media and governments buying into this agenda. This time it has stuck and they have controlled the narrative better, helped by the active censorship of opposing opinions in an unprecedented way. The degree of collaboration and control has been extraordinary, thrusting the WHO to the front line of global public health policy and in so doing, infiltrating into the structures of government throughout the world.
But still it has polarized so many people? Is the WHO being used to fulfil a certain agenda? President Trump has decided to stop funding the organization and accuses the WHO of favouring China. The USA states that China kept knowledge of the impending pandemic from the rest of the world, after the 1st outbreak in Wuhan in November. However, it seems that the economic fight between China and USA, one that long preceded this pandemic crisis is being projected into the spat about the WHO and some would say that the pandemic in general is really a reflection of underlying global economic and political struggles. The economy in the USA and Europe was already looking fragile last fall and for some the global lockdown is an opportunity to capitalize on the situation. The richest people in the world have only got richer and Big Pharma, for years being seen as virtual pariahs by the public, are now back in favour. For many developing countries, the economic fall out may be precipitous and some African countries are already having to go to the IMF and World Bank for loans, which normally come with onerous conditions. For many mullti-national corporations and governments, this may be an opportunity.
Also, there is some evidence that the virus was actually seen in Europe and the USA as early as November and early December, but it wasn’t recognized at the time. If so, that would perhaps challenge the official story that it took some time after Wuhan before it appeared in the rest of the world. The WHO stated that it felt China did its best in the circumstances and it didn’t want to upset China and create a political spat. It felt it had to work with China in this situation.
Whatever the situation, the fact remains that the WHO has been the voice saying that this pandemic could kill millions more people unless governments embark on draconian lockdowns in order to suppress the virus, while we wait for the essential but very expensive vaccine. This, however, contradicts the WHO’s own 2018 pandemic advice, which does not generally encourage mass lockdowns, contact tracing and quarantines, or closing borders. So, if that is the WHO’s own recommendations, why is it contradicting them and insisting countries maintain lockdown.
Why lockdown Africa with so few cases
This has been particularly seen in Africa where the impact of lockdown has been devastating, given that many countries don’t have the resources to support millions of people who survive based on daily incomes and cannot afford to lockdown for months. South Africa initiated one of the most stringent lockdowns in the world for 3 months, even though the mortality rate is relatively low, now reaching perhaps 16,000 in a population of nearly 60 million. It has been said that 20% of children have gone to bed hungry in the country and food lines have stretched for miles. Many more will have died as a consequence of lockdown due to a lack of medical support and other factors. The economy is shattered and the government has had to go to the IMF to borrow billions. And yet, the WHO has tried to persuade the government to maintain lockdown even longer and insisted that it is doing the right thing. The same has happened in other countries. Recent research is suggesting that there may be 1.4 million extra deaths globally due to Tuberculosis by 2025, with over 6 million cases, as a result of the focus being given to Covid19, including the drastic lockdown strategies in poor countries. The WHO tried to encourage Malawi to lockdown initially, but a court ruling stopped it, the court saying the government made no preparations to support the people in one of the world’s poorest countries. Again, what is the WHO thinking? Who is it listening to?
Even with the fact that Africa has seen comparatively few cases and deaths, the WHO has consistently advocated lockdowns, irrespective of the damage done. It has consistently fanned the flames of fear, exaggerating figures and encouraging all forms of restrictions. Unfortunately, most countries have complied, but not all. There is a deliberate misrepresentation occurring now where an increase in positive tests alone is being used to maintain the fear. The fact that the WHO, with all the funding and expert opinions is willing to promulgate such falsehoods has to indicate that it has its own agenda irrespective of the facts and that it’s doing its best to prolong the pandemic paranoia as we wait for the miracle cure. Therefore, its longstanding ability to fake a pandemic is getting a new lease of life, with billions in profits waiting. Even if there are now more cases in Europe (including the fact that the PCR tests may be confusing normal flu with Covid19) as autumn arrives, the degree of fear and control being forced upon populations everywhere looks highly suspicious.
The corruption of Science and suppression of Hydroxychloroquine
If there are some further questions regarding the agenda of the WHO and those that fund it then the drama around the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) reveals a den of vipers in terms of suppressing a possible viable therapy for Covid19. The WHO was behind one of the trials called the Solidarity Trial that was looking into the use of Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID19. The study started again, after being halted on May 25th, after the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published FAKE research into hydroxychloroquine, which initially had a profound impact on the studies being done. People took this research seriously. However, the study was subsequently retracted in one of the most embarrassing moments in both journal’s illustrious history. The editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, called it a “monumental fraud”, but didn’t spend too much time contemplating the profound inadequacies of his own journal’s peer review process. The published study was flawed in so many ways. It was a meta-analysis study looking at the clinical outcomes of HCQ, the study coming to the conclusion the use of HCQ and Chloroquine increased the death rate by 30% and caused heart problems. This data was apparently taken from over 96,000 patients but the organization that did the study admitted that they didn’t check any of the data.
As soon as this data was published, two major trials, one by the WHO and other in the UK were halted. It’s use in France was also suspended. On June 15th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reversed its emergency status use of HCQ. However, it was fairly quickly revealed that the data was flawed and utterly worthless. But amazingly, it had been published in the two most respected medical journals in the world. Why? This is the interesting question in this very political climate. The study also was not clear regarding the actual doses used in the many patients, and didn’t question why “toxic” doses were given in some cases and not others and analyze the difference. All in all, it was a gigantic mess and yet profoundly impacted the debate, limiting access to HCQ and stymieing research.
However, other research was actually showing positive results with the combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin, confirming the previous work done by the famous French researcher, Professor Didier Raoult, whose experience with the use of the above treatments and many years of research initially gave him a significant profile but subsequently found he couldn’t publish his own research in the Lancet. Even his own government in France suppressed his research, again influenced by Big Pharma. In the above research, treatment with HCQ decreased the mortality hazard ratio (the risk of death in the defined time period of the study) by 66%. Based on that analysis, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if this treatment was used. The interesting thing in this whole debate, as one wades through so much on the topic and all the research that says one thing or the other is that there is an agenda here. The famous Dr Fauci dismissed the above research as not being a randomized clinical trial (RCT) when it wasn’t even meant to be one and then recommended Remdesivir, when it has shown very indifferent results. Does Dr Fauci have his own preference here?
The Solidarity Trial and another similar study by the Recovery Trial, this one funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation both used doses twice to four times the maximum amount that had previously recommended and that had even led to a Brazilian study of Hydroxychloroquine to be halted in its high dose amounts. To quote from the following studies:
“The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial."
“The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.
The UK "Recovery" trial was very similar to, but not part of, the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials. The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 deaths, about 10% higher than those receiving standard care, a non-significant difference.
The recovery trial stated that they were following doses which are recommended in the Solidarity Trial. “
Since the article was published, the author notified via tweet the Director General of the WHO, Dr Tedros and within days, the WHO funded trial has been stopped. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA had also removed its Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine due to the supposed dangers seen.
The author of the above article shows ample evidence that the “toxic” doses of hydroxychloroquine used were well-known, that it led to the deaths of at least 396 people and that it did not give the opportunity to analyze the potential benefits of the drug if it had been given at much more moderate doses, as been widely described by physicians and researchers. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that the WHO wanted the Hydroxychloroquine part of the study to fail, while it continues its research into other expensive options, including the rushed vaccines and experimental anti-viral drugs like Remdesivir. The health concerns used to justify stopping the trials of HCQ do not seem to be apparent when looking at the health risks of a rush vaccine programme with untested technology.
The political aspect of the debate around the use of Hydroxychloroquine has been extreme, and of course, behind that, the money to be made is key. This is nothing new in the world of Big Pharma and government complicity but the fight over HCQ took it to new depths. This was seen particularly in the USA. On May 1st the National Institute of Health’s Covid19 Treatment Guidelines panel members allowed for the emergency use of Remdesivir and already pulled away from HCQ. Emergency use allows for a drug to be used without clear proof of action. Many people on this panel had direct links for a long time to Gilead, the makers of Remdesivir. A few days worth of this drug cost $,3500 as apposed to $10-20 for HCQ. Gilead is the largest private pharma donor to the World Health Organization.
Many doctors and organizations have since spoken up about what has happened and demanding that the medical issues are removed from the political and financial influences that are now dictating the agenda. A well-researched document published by the Economic Standard makes a good case to relook at the science and to depoliticize the debate. The stakes could not be higher given the consequences we are seeing for the whole world, but it is unlikely that the WHO and its allies will be taking much notice. Covid19 is about much more than a virus now. There is too much at stake to admit that yet again, this pandemic is a fake, or if not a fake, then being used for other agendas, including gross profits, political control and to force a dubious vaccine onto the global population. As Bill Gates said in 2010, it is the decade of vaccines.